Psalm
146
The text for this morning comes from
the 146th Psalm, which is the first of five Psalms, the last 5 Psalms,
all of which begin and end with one word: Hallelujah!
And Hallelujah is a legitimate Hebrew
word that actually means something -- it literally means "praise
the Lord". And so all of these last five Psalms are about
praising God, and the reasons why we should praise God. Only the
reasons given in this particular Psalm are not probably the reasons we
would expect. So listen:
1Praise the Lord!
Praise the Lord, O my soul!
2I will praise the Lord as long as I live;
I will sing praises to my God all my life long.
3Do not put your trust in princes,
in mortals, in whom there is no help.
4When their breath departs, they return to the earth;
on that very day their plans perish.
5Happy are those whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the Lord their God,
6who made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that is in them;
who keeps faith for ever;
7who executes justice for the oppressed;
who gives food to the hungry.
The Lord sets the prisoners free;
8the Lord opens the eyes of the blind.
The Lord lifts up those who are bowed down;
the Lord loves the righteous.
9The Lord watches over the strangers;
he upholds the orphan and the widow,
but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.
10The Lord will reign for ever,
your God, O Zion, for all generations.
Praise the Lord!
We received word a couple of weeks ago
and put it out to the congregation that Sharon Watkins, the General
Minister and President of the Disciples of Christ, was appearing on
national TV as part of the presidential debates. One of the folks
that was going to put questions to some of the Democratic
challengers. This particular event was being broadcast on
CNN.
Through the wonders of the Internet,
you can watch that entire program online. We're not going to watch
all of that today, as it's over an hour long, but I did want to share
with you just the question that Sharon put to the candidates, in this
case to Senator John Edwards:
"Senator Edwards, I'd like to ask
you about prayer. Admittedly, a personal matter. How, if at
all, has prayer been a source of strength and wisdom for you in your
life? How would prayer influence the decisions that you make as
President? And most importantly, when you pray, how do you know if
the voice that you are hearing is the voice of God, or your own voice in
disguise?"
[Senator Edwards laughed and struggled
a bit with how to respond, and said "Some would argue that we have
a hard time telling the difference"]
I'm not going to play his entire
response, because I don't want to give the impression that we're
endorsing Senator John Edwards, but I love the way that it kind of
caught him off guard. Gosh, how do I tell the difference?
And, you see, that's a great question
for all of us, isn't it? To think of the importance of that
question when you have the power of the Presidency of the United States,
to be able to discern the difference between those two.
Well, scripture in general and this
Psalm in particular provide some important clues and guidelines for how
we can discern that difference between our own desires and the voice of
God.
Hebrew scholar Clinton McCann, who
wrote a 600-page commentary on the Psalms for the New Interpreter's
Bible Series, calls this Psalm a "policy statement for the Kingdom
of God". A policy statement for the Kingdom of God. And
he says that the Psalm makes clear that the sovereign God stands for,
and works for, justice. Not simply as an abstract principle, but
as an embodied reality. Provision for basic human needs,
liberation from oppression, empowerment for the disenfranchised and the
dispossessed.
And that is why, the Psalm says, that
we are to praise God. A God who cares about very real human hurts
and hopes. A God who, according to the introduction of the Exodus
story makes very clear, hears the cries of the oppressed and the
suffering. A God who knows our pain and agony.
And to give true praise, then, to such
a God is not about the language we use, it's not about what we say or
sing in worship, rather it's about what we do.
Obery Hendricks, professor of Biblical
Interpretation at New York Theological Seminary, says that ". . the
only true evidence of real spirituality lies not in retreating to a
private prayer closet [as important as prayer is in our lives], but
rather the only authentic evidence of spirituality is that we have
personally sought and struggled for the health, the wholeness, and the
freedom of others".
The Reverend James Forbes from the
Riverside Church in New York City said it even better when he came
here as part of the "Let Justice Roll" campaign in 2004, he
told us: "Nobody gets to heaven without a reference letter
from the poor".
Think about that. Of course we
know that, if we think about it, in terms of what Jesus said in Matthew
25: 'I was hungry, you fed me, I was thirsty, you gave me
something to drink'. Or in Luke 4: 'The spirit of the Lord
is upon me to proclaim good news to the poor and to set the captives
free'.
But I didn't know, until I started
working on my sermon for this week, that such is also a major theme in
the Psalms. For instance, in Psalm 10 we read:
2In arrogance the
wicked persecute the poor—
let them be caught in the schemes they have devised.
10They stoop, they
crouch,
and the helpless fall by their might.
11They think in their heart, ‘God has forgotten,
he has hidden his face, he will never see it.’
14But you do see!
Indeed you note trouble and grief,
that you may take it into your hands;
the helpless commit themselves to you;
you have been the helper of the orphan.
O Lord, you will
hear the desire of the meek;
you will strengthen their heart, you will incline
your ear
18to do justice for the orphan and the oppressed,
so that those from earth may strike terror no more.
How appropriate for today. In
Psalm 72 we read:
Give the king your
justice, O God,
and your righteousness to a king’s son.
2May he judge your people with righteousness,
and your poor with justice.
May he defend the cause
of the poor of the people,
give deliverance to the needy,
and crush the oppressor.
Or in Psalm 82:
Give justice to the weak
and the orphan;
maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute.
4Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.’
And so, then, in this Psalm for this
morning, we are told:
Happy are those whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the Lord their God,
6who made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that is in them;
who keeps faith for ever;
7who executes justice for the oppressed;
who gives food to the hungry.
Psalm 99, I think, summarizes it most
succinctly and says simply "God is a lover of justice".
As
I noted last Sunday, the Psalms were the ancient churches, and
ancient Israel's, hymnbook. These are the texts that they sung,
and recited in worship every week. And these texts, along with
very clear instructions in the Torah on the communities' responsibility
to the poor (the orphans and the widows), together with specific
condemnations by the prophets of the abuse of wealth and position by
those in power, were among the most cited passages by Jewish sources in
the first century. It was part of that religious milieu in which
Jesus grew up.
When you overlay those texts on what we
know about the first century in Palestine: Roman occupation, the
harsh rule of Herod, the heavy burdens of taxation and debt (much
greater than anything we know today, and hence that story about the
debts forgiven -- you have to understand that those debts literally
meant the loss of livelihood for thousands of people in the first
century who then lost their land, lost their means of support), the
enormous gap of wealth with very few [people] between the rich and the
poor, the collaboration of the religious elite with the political rulers
to maintain that system of oppression.
You see all of that, you see the
scriptures, you see there is a very serious disconnect between the
biblical vision for what God intends for our world and what actually
was.
Then we have to ask ourselves: is
it really different today?
In that CNN debate, Jim Wallis from
Sojourners asked the candidates what they would do about the issue of
poverty if they became President. Like Sharon Watkins, it was the
only question he got to ask, which is unfortunate because he had some
other great questions that he sent out in an E-mail after the
debate. These are the questions he didn't get to ask:
"In the New
Testament, the beatitudes offers a vision for the world with
statements like 'blessed are the poor in the spirit, for theirs is the
kingdom', 'blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice, for
they shall have their fill', 'blessed are the peacemakers for they
shall be called the children of God'. How would this biblical
vision of the world shape your leadership in politics?"
"The command 'be
not afraid' appears frequently in the Bible. And yet, U.S.
foreign policy seems to be driven by fear. Our leaders seem to
justify the most important decisions in foreign policy with dire
warnings of impending attacks. Have we let fear push out wisdom
and prudence as the primary virtues of foreign policy? Should
the biblical command 'be not afraid' have a role in foreign policy
decision-making?"
Those are the kinds of questions I
would love to hear addressed in the upcoming campaign. But they
rarely get asked. Questions that lift up the biblical vision for
our world where the love for justice is evident in the well-being of the
most vulnerable.
Why won't those questions get
asked? Why don't we hear more candidates honestly and humbly
struggling with that question of how they discern and differentiate
between the voice of God and their own desires? Why is not the
biblical concern for 'the least of these', our brothers and sisters, a
primary campaign issue?
Professor Hendricks, in his new book
with a provocative title "The Politics of Jesus", reveals, I
think, the answer (that's a hot topic today, Wallis has his book
"God's Politics", Hendricks now the "Politics of
Jesus", and others writing on that topic).
Hendricks maintains that ever since
Constantine, when Christianity became the official religion of the
empire, we have been guilty of a new kind of docetism. Now I
realize 'docetism' may not be on the lips of a lot of folks these days,
so here's a definition: docetism is the belief that Jesus only
appeared to be human. That Jesus in reality was a spirit who
appeared to have a body and therefore did not really experience hunger
and thirst, or suffer and die, because how could the divine ever
experience such imperfection and weakness?
And so docetism taught that Jesus
didn't, he didn't suffer that kind of weakness. And it was
officially declared heresy by the church councils in the 4th
century. But it's hung around in various forms ever since.
For instance, if Jesus was fully human, he faced human temptation.
That's the point of the temptation stories, that he faced real
temptations. So it would be very understandable to think, as
Kazantzakis presents in his book "The Last Temptatation of
Christ" (made into a movie by Martin Scorsese), that Jesus would
have been tempted to come down off of the cross to lead a normal life,
to find a good Jewish girl, settle down, get married, have kids, drink
beer, and watch football, like any normal American male J.
Right, that would have been normal temptation? That's what the
movie essentially portrayed.
It got a lot of folks upset, there was
a big dispute over it. When we lived in Fresno there was this
front-page article that talked about this religious dispute and how
Martin Scorsese has defamed Jesus in portraying this temptation.
At the end of the article is says "But one pastor. . . .
.". Of course who would that be? Yours truly can't keep
his mouth shut, and I say something about human temptation that Jesus
faced because he was fully human. And I get this irate woman who
then calls me up and says "I don't believe that!". And I
said "Believe what?". And she said "That Jesus was
fully human, because it says, after all, that Jesus was the son of God
and therefore he could not have faced those kinds of
temptations". I informed her that ma'am, that's fine if you
want to believe that, you just need to know that position was declared a
heresy 1,600 years ago. It's OK if you want to believe it, they
said 1,600 years ago that those who believe it are going to hell, but
that's OK if you want to believe it J.
You see, that's docetism -- the idea
that Jesus only appeared to be human. The new docetism
described by professor Hendricks is the refusal of millions of
Christians to recognize the importance of the political circumstances of
Jesus' earthly life and their influence on his person and in his
ministry.
And in this new docetism, or political
docetism as Hendricks calls it, Jesus only seems to notice the
political and economic realities around him. The problem of
debit. He only appears to address the systemic issues of
oppression and injustice.
In reality, we all know, that he was
only concerned about individual welfare and personal morality.
Though he prays for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven,
he really only wants us to know how to get from earth to
heaven.
That belief in a personal savior who
shows no concern for our social, economic, or political well-being, says
Hendricks, is just as heretical as the idea that Jesus was not fully
human as well as fully divine.
And likewise, Jim Wallis, in his quote
in God's Politics that we're reading in our Monday-morning group, he
says: "There is no spiritual transformation without a
personal God. However, that personal God is never private.
Restricting God to private space was the great heresy of the 20th
century American church. Denying the public God is a denial of
biblical faith itself. A rejection of the prophets, the apostles,
and Jesus himself".
So let me just be clear and specific in
case anyone doesn't get the point: the denial of the public God in
our culture, the lover of justice, has resulted in the abuse of basic
human rights by our government, the rejection of the Geneva convention
and habeas corpus, and the use of torture.
The denial of the public God who calls
us to turn swords into plowshares, has resulted in a pre-emptive war
that was denounced by the Pope and the religious leaders of all the
major mainline denominations and thousands of clergy.
The denial of the public God who
proclaims good news to the poor, resulted in the greatest rise in
poverty and the gap between the rich and the poor that has occurred
since the depression.
The denial of the public God, the
creator of this world, has resulted in the refusal of our government to
recognize the significance of climate change for the welfare of future
generations.
So do we think we can solve these
problems by simply changing who is at the top of our government without
addressing the issues of our perception of God?
Hear the wisdom of the Psalmist, who
says to us:
Do not put your trust in princes,
in mortals, in whom there is no help.
True and lasting change in our culture
will only occur when we get God right. We have no hope
otherwise. And that is why that question of Sharon Watkins is so
important. Knowing the voice of God, apart from our own. The
God who executes justice for the oppressed. The God who gives food
to the hungry. The God who sets the prisoner free. The God
who opens the eyes of the blind. The personal and yet public God
who calls us to do God's work here on earth for the common good of
all.
It matters not so much who is in the
White House or the state houses as who it is that is in our hearts.
And believe me, you don't know how hard
it is for me to admit that.
Do you think God cares which political
party is in control? It's not that I'm saying that's not
important, but more important, most important, is our understanding of
God. And what God calls us to do and to be. It is this God,
not the private God of civil religion and of popular Christianity, who
gives us hope. Who offers us salvation.
The God who is the lover of
justice. That is the Lord who will reign forever, for all
generations. Praise the Lord.