Sunday's Sermon @ Highlands

The Passover was near. Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

That’s how the reading from John starts. The Passover was near. Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

If you care about Jesus, you’re saying, “what the heck. Don’t you know those folks are looking for a reason to kill you? It’s Passover. The place will be crawling with Roman soldiers to make certain nothing gets out of control. Their co-conspirators in the Temple have been plotting. They don’t need much of a reason to kill you…nor much of a plan. You need to think this over.”

Holy week always reminds me of the last week of Martin Luther King’s days on this earth. Or…actually…of so many of MLK’s days on this earth. Whether it was Atlanta, Birmingham, Selma, or Montgomery. Anywhere he went, it could have been asked of him, “what the heck. Don’t you know those folks are looking for a reason to kill you? They don’t need much of a reason. You need to think this over.”

So…why’d he go? Why do people who care about social justice go where they’re not wanted, say what most people don’t want to hear, especially those with power, why do they go where their bodies, or lives or reputations are put at risk? When MLK was asked why he was in Birmingham, he answered, “I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.”

He said, “Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" message far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.”

The Gospel of John tells us of the time when…just like the prophets and the Apostle…and Dr. King and Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela and Malcolm X and others…Jesus knew what he was walking into and the danger he was placing himself in…as MLK said the night before he was murdered, as he was in Memphis to help lowly garbage workers, “The question is not, "If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?" and he said,  “Then I got to Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out there. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers? Well, I don't know what will happen now,” he said. “But it doesn't matter with me now. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will.”

He knew he was about to lose his life, about to be killed and thought only about God’s will. It’s not likely any of us will ever be in that position...all we have at stake is a little bit of our reputation, will we be liked or criticized or ostracized, or ridiculed…if we do God’s will.

“The Passover was near. Jesus went up to Jerusalem.”

And like every one of the other prophets, then and now… he’s not bashful about why he’s there. Jesus heads straight for the Temple. If he’s gonna hide, he’s gonna hide in plain sight. Why, you ask, did he choose the Temple? In those days, the temple was the center of the power of the rich and politically influential…it was used to abuse.

This is where the chief priests, chosen by the Roman Emperor, maintained a boot on the neck of the poor. The Temple was where the politically powerful and the religiously corrupt conspired to make certain the unjust social, economic, and political systems of the day survived any effort to reform them.

It was the first century’s den of robbers.

At Passover, Jesus knew it would be filled and while the danger was great, so was the opportunity to speak out about the withering injustice.

When he walked through the door, he didn’t just say that’s too bad, that makes me feel sorry for those who are hurting and hungry…Jesus lost it. He lost it. He knew what he was going to do, the statement he was going to make, the symbolism of turning over the table of the money-changers. None of that was an accident. None of that was coincidental…any more than was Gandhi’s salt march, Rosa Parks taking a seat at the front of the bus, the Freedom Riders getting off the bus at disembarking from the safety of the Greyhound and wading into a group of bigots who had hate in their hearts and clubs in their hands.

Jesus walked into that Temple and challenged the very things that propped up the injustice of those times; just like Gandhi challenged the tax on salt, a critical product for the masses or Rosa Parks took the seats at the front of the bus which were a symbol of white privilege…just as the Freedom Riders submitted themselves to the brutality of those who thought their clubs were more powerful than God’s will.

Gandhi and Rosa Parks and the Freedom Riders knew as did Jesus that if you take away the symbols of power, the oppressors have no power. The empire could not maintain control over the oppressed without the religionists. The temple was the symbol of their power. The religionists could be counted on to calm the people when they reached the boiling point. That’s why the Temple leaders sought to kill the trouble-maker Jesus.

That’s what John was trying to tell us in the 11^th chapter when he later told of the chief priests and the Pharisees calling a meeting of the council, and saying, “What are we to do? If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.”

Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You don’t get it. You need to understand that it is better to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.”

I received an email this week from someone about the column I wrote a week ago criticizing the legislature for its votes against gays and lesbians, the poor, people without healthcare, criticizing them for ridiculing working people on food stamps, ignoring people struggling with two or three low wage jobs…and others who are different. The email talked about friends who are gay and how people, politicians, church leaders…mistreat them.”

The email said this has contributed the writer’s decision to be an atheist!

I wrote back and said, “Don’t let them take away your faith. Don’t let them get by making you to feel as though there is no God.” I said, “You don’t have to be an atheist. Jesus is on OUR side, not theirs. Don’t let them think for a minute that Jesus doesn’t see them as the 21^st century’s den of robbers. They rob others of their faith by claiming they speak for God and that God doesn’t really love everyone.   

You see, the center of corruption is no longer the temple or the church. Today’s chief priests tried to teach their Gospel of oppression and hate from the pulpits. They tried to abuse scripture to make it appear Jesus was on their side. They failed.

It’s almost St. Patrick’s Day. I want to illustrate what I am saying with a little Irish history. When the English first started trying to control the Irish and enslave them, they sent the priests to explain why the word of God expected them to be good slaves. It didn’t work. Why? Because the priests spoke English, not Gaelic. They didn’t speak the people’s language.

So then the English went to the government. If they’d just pass the right laws or refuse to pass others, the Irish could be controlled by a unjust, discriminatory, oppressive system.

You see, that’s where we are today. The fundamentalists tried to make their case that God wants the poor and the gay and the immigrants and others to be oppressed. But they found they don’t speak our langauge and we don’t speak theirs. When they learned they could not persuade us from their pulpits, they went to the Capitol Building.

There’s a hymn called “The Anger of Christ” the lyrics of which speak to this third Sunday of Lent, the day Jesus lost it in the temple:

May the anger of Christ be mine,
 when the world grows hard and greedy;
 when the rich have no care for the poor,
when the powerful take from the needy.

    In a world of restless change,
 standing for love and faith and justice;
 in a dark confusing time,
 we bear the light, the shining light of Christ

If Jesus were around today, he would not have headed for the temple. He’d have headed for the modern day den of thieves, the place where the politically powerful have conspired with the religionists to maintain political, economic, and social injustice. 

If Jesus were around today, he’d make a whip of cords, and drive all of them out of that den of robbers, along with their sheep and cattle. He’d overturn their tables and their lives and the power they hold over others. If Jesus were here…

…wait…Jesus is here! Jesus is among us and he’s working through us. Have you seen the trailer for the CNN special about Jesus? “The clues he left behind? WE ARE the clues he left behind.

The Passover is near. Jesus is going up to Jerusalem and he wants us to with him. AMEN

Wyoming - Love it or Leave it?

With the blah-blah-blah about whether President Obama “loves” America, how about asking whether our politicians love Wyoming.

What is Wyoming? The place “where the deer and the antelope play, where never is heard a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day?” God knows we love that place.  We love the wide-open spaces. We love the climate so long as we remind ourselves “at least we don’t have hurricanes and floods.”

Sam Western’s book “Pushed Off the Mountain, Sold Down the River,” quotes Governor Stan Hathaway. “There is no better place in the world to feel satisfaction than in the state of Wyoming.” Stan quickly added, “If you can make a good living.”

Writer Kathleen Norris and her husband moved from New York to a South Dakota farm inherited from her grandmother.  Norris spoke of the reaction they received from locals. It easily parallels what newcomers can expect from Wyoming. Whenever offering an idea or a thought, they were met with something akin to, “South Dakota (substitute “Wyoming”) is the best place on earth to live.” And then the native son or daughter would add, “If you’re so damned smart, how come you live here?”

The inner and the outer scenery must blur if we truly “love” Wyoming. That’s a line many Wyoming politicians determine to make certain remains black and white. The beauty of Wyoming’s outer scenery simply won’t blur with the ugly reality of the “inner scenery.” It’s defined by disdain for the poor and for people of a different sexual orientation, newcomers, and anyone else who threatens the great Wyoming myths. The greatest of those myths is that this is “the Equality State.”

You’ll find the evidence in Wyoming’s inability to retain young people. Most of our children love Wyoming, but only through the rearview mirrors of their fleeing automobiles. Young people find it unbearable to tolerate the bigotry and the narrowness of thought that their parents accept as a part of the scenery.

For bright young people, living here after high school is much like the Greek King Sisyphus’s punishment. He was required to push a boulder up a hill and watch it roll back down and then forced to push it back up again.

That’s what it’s like listening to public officials advocate prejudice. Take the debate over protecting gays and lesbians from job discrimination. Paraphrasing Rep. Roy Edwards of Gillette, the next thing you know obese people will want protection from being fired. “It’s a choice. “ Edwards claimed with all the confidence of one who actually had the facts. “They are just as well discriminated against as anybody else.” That should leave you breathless.

Being gay isn’t a choice despite assertions to the contrary by clueless, bigoted legislators. But living in Wyoming is a choice, one many young folks don’t take. They have a BS meter not enabling them to hang around politicians using terms like “socialism” to define healthcare for low-income workers or use influence to demand the university destroy artwork with which the powerful disagree. They aren’t willing to raise children where schools are denied academic freedom to teach science and history without the ongoing threat of being forced to teach the Christian Bible. They see through legislators who demand the federal government balance its budget so long as it sends us enough money to balance ours.

Hathaway was right. “There’s no better place in the world to feel satisfaction than in the state of Wyoming-if you can make a good living.” A good living includes a promising life allowing people to care for families while being fully integrated into the life of a community.

Fifty-four years ago, Wyoming’s Civil Rights Advisory Committee concluded, “Wyoming has long taken pride in its motto ‘The Equality State.’ The studies of this committee have shown that this ‘equality’ is largely limited to Caucasian citizens.” Now the so-called “equality” has receded further, applying to Caucasians only if they are neither gay nor obese.

Love it or leave it! Right?

And they're giving themselves a raise?

I hadn’t wanted to write again about this year’s legislature, but I feel like Michael Corleone in Godfather III. “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.”

A Facebook friend said, “This session has reminded me of something my cousin used to say. ‘Christianity hasn't failed; it's just never been tried.’ It has been so disheartening to watch our local ‘Christians’ fighting for the right to despise and discriminate against the weak, the poor, the minorities, the powerless.”

If you’ve been to the legislative chambers, you may have noticed. There are neither windows nor mirrors. Legislators who lamely refuse to provide healthcare to low-income working or disabled people should have windows. They could look out and see those about whom they’re so cavalier.

Legislators arguing its time to raise their own pay after repeatedly rejecting minimum wage increases could use a mirror. They say current remuneration doesn’t cover hotel rooms during the tourist season. Well, wages earned by tens-of-thousands don’t cover housing for their families or food for their children. A quick look in a mirror could prove sobering.

Then there’s the disrespect shown Martin Luther King. Reluctantly the legislature created a holiday but King’s birthday is a working day for the legislature. When they work, so do Legislative Service Office staff and hundreds of state employees who have to sit by the phones in case a legislator calls.

Contrast that with what they did for President’s Day. Many of the Republicans in the legislature want to get home for Lincoln Day dinners. So they took a four-day weekend.

Now there’s feigned outrage to comments made by the director of the Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI). The Governor vetoed a bill regarding asset forfeiture. The DCI director called on law enforcement officers to back the governor against an effort to override. ”The truth is,” he said, “that many legislators are either on the boards of certain groups or are provided significant political contributions by groups which influence their vote.”

Not politically correct, but the truth. Some legislators are distraught. They say something like Lewis Carroll wrote. “Well, I never heard it before, but it sounds uncommon nonsense.” It’s the Wyoming Liberty Group lobbying to override. We know about them, their money, and influence. So does the DCI director.

Then there’s Harlan Edmunds, president of the Conservative Republicans of Wyoming. CROW believes Wyoming’s Republican Party has veered dangerously to the left. After he was elected to the legislature last November, this column discussed Mr. Edmunds. “We’ll know by the end of the coming session whether Harlan Edmunds is a serious legislator or just another fictional character.”

Now we know.

Rep. Edmunds called Medicaid “socialism.” If that were so, and it’s not, his state-provided health insurance would likewise be “socialism.”  Harlan Edmunds is a state employee who urged his House colleagues to kill a cost-of-living raise for state employees. He explained, “Most state employees don’t work hard enough for what they are getting paid now.” Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall when he goes back to work with the state employees who he trashed.

Representative Elaine Harvey deserves kudos. Elaine chairs the House Committee on Labor, Health and Social Services. She demonstrated more wisdom than a majority of the voters in House District 12. They elected Edmunds despite his outrageousness. As a legislator, he proved so outrageous she booted him from her committee room. I’ve been around the legislature for half a century. I’ve never seen that. Edmunds made a fool of himself and those who voted for him. When they get the chance in 2016, HD12 voters need to finish what Rep. Harvey started and boot him clear out of the legislature.

I can’t get Al Green’s song, “The Snake” out of my head. "You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in.” Either the voters like being bitten or just vote the party line. Either way, in a democracy, we get what we deserve.

Free speech is not free

"It's the symbol of freedom of speech, of freedom of religion, of democracy, and secularism," Charlie Hebdo’s editor said. Makes one wonder, “What is free speech?”

It protects spoken or written words or acts like the burning of an American flag. But it doesn’t include burning your draft card. It includes a students right not to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. But doesn’t permit the student to write a story for the school newspaper when the administration disagrees.  It does not justify the distribution of obscene materials but does permit politicians to tell obscene lies about one another.

It’s easy to judge the terrorists who raided the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris. It’s not so simple to judge Charlie Hebdo.

For most commentators Charlie exercises “freedom of speech.” Pope Francis cautioned, "If my good friend says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."

In contrast, Salman Rushdie, the controversial writer whose life was threatened by radical Muslims because of his book "The Satanic Verses" said the right to free speech is absolute or else it isn't free.I’m inclined to agree most with the Pope. Rushdie is clearly incorrect. The right to free speech is not absolute.

Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated the most recognized limitation in a 1919 Supreme Court decision. A man was convicted for inciting violence by publicly opposing the draft during World War I. The Court said he should go to jail despite his “free speech” defense. This is the case that gave rise to the adage that “one cannot shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”

The iconic phrase emanates from Holmes’ opinion. “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.”

Charlie Hebdo makes its point by shouting “fire” in a “public theater.” The theater is crowded with more than their own cartoonists. It includes policemen, bystanders, and innocent Muslims who are then targeted by those who seek to avenge Charlie.

Conflicts between radical Islamists and Westerners have converted the earth into a powder keg. The violence didn’t end in Paris. Last week, 45 Christian churches in Niger were burned in that Muslim nation protesting the French cartoonists lampooning of Islam.

Radicals on each side believe if they kill more of the other side, they’ll win. Win what? Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” Blindness is the least of today’s problems.

Free speech isn’t a meaningful in isolation. Its exercise demands accompanying exercise of self-restraint, accountability, and personal responsibility.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, (French version of the 1st Amendment of our Constitution reads, “The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man.”

Precious rights should be cherished, not used as fuses for indiscriminate firebombs. Speech is a tool for reaching understanding. Truth telling can cause divisions, even anger but if that is the sole purpose of using it, the “speaker” degrades the very notion.

The purpose of the attack on Charlie Hebdo was to inhibit the magazine’s use of satire, i.e. to limit Charlie’s use of speech. But the purpose of the doctrine of free speech is not to permit its unrestrained use. If speech was an unlimited right, as Rushdie advocates, one could cry “fire” in a crowded theater even though it may cause the deaths of dozens or hundreds.

Charlie Hebdo isn’t making the world better but rather more dangerous as it insists on getting its way using a self-indulgent tool to create anger. It’s the resulting anger and the predictable destruction accompanying it that is unrestrained, not free speech.