At a meeting today about homelessness in our county, the 10 of us in attendance looked at statistics, recent events, projected needs, and plans to try and meet those needs.  It is a daunting challenge, and one for which the churches in the community are being recruited.  Options for their help include providing shelter in church buildings at various times, especially on cold weather nights; assisting other congregations that provide shelter; contributing funds to support the work; cook meals; and make in-kind contributions such as toiletries, clothes and other necessities.

One of the pastors in attendance seemed somewhat skeptical about the efforts to help homeless people in our community.  If we help them too much, we “enable” their lifestyle, he suggested.  Some lifestyle.  He twice quoted what he described as a biblical principle:  “Those who don’t work don’t eat.”  This is 2 Thessalonians 3:10.  I think it says “won’t work,” instead of “don’t work.”  I’d hate to be sick, a child, or otherwise physically unable to work in his little world.  I guess I would go hungry, because that’s in the Bible.  All righteousness would be fulfilled!

There are other biblical principles, too.  For instance, in Matthew 25, Jesus says, “I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink,” and it goes on from there.  The followers of Jesus ask, “When did we do that?”  “Whenever you did it to the least of there, who are members of my family, you did it to me.”  There don’t seem to be qualifications attached.

Are all biblical “principles” equally weighted?  Do context, culture, language, and other factors make a difference?  Do the words of Paul or another writer carry the same importance as the teachings of Jesus?

These questions complicate our attempts to be faithful followers of Jesus.  It seems to me, though, if we’re unsure we can always go back to Jesus’ answer when he was asked, “Which is the greatest of the commandments?”  He made a principled response.

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength; and your neighbor as yourself.”

“Have A Little Faith – You’ll Feel Better” is the name of an online article by a writer from SELF magazine.  The article then presents results from a couple of studies that showed there was no discernable benefit from prayer for hospital patients. In fact, in another case, it seemed that patients who knew someone was praying for them actually had more health complications than those for whom there were no known prayers.

As I read the article, I felt the writer’s magazine affiliation was appropriate, because most of what she seemed to be saying about prayer was from a very self-oriented perspective.  She labored under the notion that prayer was all about getting personal help or response from God.  She is not alone in that assumption. 

One positive point she made concerned benefits derived from participation in a faith community.  Churchgoers live longer, according to studies she referenced, and experienced fewer instances of some of the common health and relationship difficulties than members of the general population.

Examples were given of ways besides prayer people find stress-relief and a sense of well being: yoga, meditation, Tai Chi, chanting, and others.  She was clear in the article that she doesn’t believe in God, and has struggled throughout her life against her lack of a spiritual foundation.

It’s really a loss when prayer essentially is reduced to dictating a “wish-list” to God.  That’s really more appropriate for Santa Claus.  And it will lead to as many disappointments.  For instance, abusing our bodies or minds and then saying to God, “Please make me better,” borders on foolishness and self-delusion.

I would suggest that prayer actually is about a living relationship with a living God.  Yes, a person who prays makes his or her needs known to God, and also prays for the health and safety of others.  But, that is part of the whole.

Prayer is offering the entire person to God, with a heart and a mind open to God’s influence.  It is a way of recognizing God’s presence in life and in life’s complex contexts.  It is a discipline of a maturing faith.  Prayer’s desire is listening for and embracing the ways that God will lead us, or at least, open before us paths of faithfulness.  Despite our more common approach, the focus of prayer is on God.

When we think only of ourselves, we leave little room for or devote scarce attention to the One who is eager and able to richly bless our lives, even in ways beyond our imagining.

The local newspaper had an interesting article recently about changes in the requirements for the “Bright Futures Scholarship,” for which high school students seek to qualify.  The community service element of qualification has been tightened up to differentiate between volunteering, internships, and community service. 

What they are looking for is solid community service.  Working a carwash for a club is volunteering.  “Filing papers for mom or dad at work” is an internship.  But, true community service requires getting involved in a community project and learning from the experience.  An example cited in the article was “learning about elder care issues by volunteering at an assisted living facility.”

Seventy-five hours of service, along with a 3.5 grade average and good scores on the SAT and ACT standardized tests are necessary for consideration for scholarship grants.  The bar is set high!

Serving the greater good of a community or a society requires a high level of commitment.  As I read the article, I thought of the Congressional Hunger Fellows Program that I learned about years ago when it was in its infancy.  Then-Rep. Tony Hall (D-OH) got it all started when the first Bush Administration cut funding for numerous social programs, including hunger.  

The idea of the CHF program was to invite bright, intelligent, committed college graduates to spend a term in Washington learning about hunger issues, government, and the legislative process.  Following their seminars and training, the Fellows scattered across the continent to spend a longer period of time actually working at service agencies, dealing directly with people in need and those who were dedicated to helping them.  New leaders and advocates were being raised up to address this difficult and continuing concern.

We hosted the Congressional Hunger Fellows for several years running at William Penn House when they had their Washington experience piece of the program.  An interesting side-bar to the program was the participation of the D.C. Central Kitchen, which had a chef-training program for homeless persons, most of whom stayed at the shelter run by the Community for Creative Non-Violence.  The chefs-in-training cooked the meals at William Penn House during the CHF stay.  Lots of people benefited from the program.  It was a satisfying aspect of our ministry at William Penn House, I must say.

The creative energy and ability of people who are made aware of a problem or concern in their community so often lead to approaches and sometimes even solutions that bring healing and restoration.

It’s great that young people in our area have the opportunity to try it all on for size as they work for their education, and as they learn about the world and people around them.

Even a little bit of light breaks through the heaviest darkness.

There was a cadre of Ronald Reagan worshipers who campaigned tirelessly to name buildings and places in Washington, DC after him. One of the larger government office complexes in the heart of downtown was named for Reagan.  National Airport had his name tacked on, and as I was leaving Washington to relocate elsewhere a few years back, there was a movement afoot to rename 16^th Street NW after Reagan.  I never heard the outcome of that one, but it was ironic that so many namesakes would appear in Washington, given Reagan’s disdain for the city that symbolized Federal Government, and given that his attitudes and policies were not kind to many of the city’s residents.

I remember reading a letter to the editor on this subject in which the writer suggested that those who were so determined to spread the Reagan name around just change their own names to Reagan and leave the rest of us alone.  A brilliant idea, I thought at the time.

Eric Gorski of the Associated Press reported last Saturday on a “Family Impact Summit,” held in Brandon, Florida.  It was an event intended to “replenish the roots of the Christian Right.”   According to Goski’s account, “the summit sounded a back-to-basics theme:  that evangelicals are called to be active citizens to combat threats from the left.”  Apparently, the Democratic majority in Congress is seen as a threat to “family values,” as defined by evangelicals.  The assumption of the article and of the summit was that naturally, evangelicals are Republicans. 

Of course, the main issues on the minds of the summit organizers were abortion and same-sex marriage.  Meanwhile, even among Republicans, the Iraq war and the economy are in the forefront of their concerns as they gear-up for the 2008 elections.

It seems to me that evangelicals, liberals, fundamentalists, and every other variety of Christian would do well not to align themselves with either political party.  It turns out that political parties are not vehicles for redemption.  Neither are legislative agendas.  Neither are candidates and office-holders.

If the idea of evangelicals is to dominate the political and legal scene of our nation, imposing their religious views and priorities on everyone else, they are standing on very shaky ground.  Think Iran. Think Nazi Germany.

My suggestion is they live their lives as they believe their faith compels them.  Vote for whomever they feel are the best candidates.  But don’t expect everyone, including other Christians, to agree with their views, opinions and interpretations.  And don’t even imagine people can or should be forced to conform to the evangelical worldview.  Redemption will not be found in any of that.  That’s idolatry.

Leave redemption in the hands of the One who knows what it means and how it can happen.

Almost every day I hear an ad on the radio asking, “What is the difference between you and the millions of millionaires in the country?”  If one were willing to spend the time, I imagine it would be possible to come up with quite a list of differences, although the answer on the radio is, “They wanted to become millionaires, and they went out and got it!”  The ad is for tapes or DVD’s or something telling you how to start your own Internet business, and presumably, become a millionaire.

I was surprised by the ad’s claim that there are “millions of millionaires” in the United States, but I guess I shouldn’t be.  The Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans recently was published, and the least amount of money suffocating any of the people on the list is $1.3 billion.  That’s billion, with a “b.”  So, if there are that many billionaires, I suppose there are many more down in the slums, with only millions to their name.

The cost of a presidential campaign boggles my mind, and some have suggested that Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, if he decided to enter the race, could finance his campaign completely out of his own checkbook.  Apparently, that’s one reason he won the seat he now holds – he is so wealthy no one could “buy him off.” 

     I once met a person who tried a different approach.  It was during my time as Executive Director of William Penn House in Washington, DC.  One day I answered the door at WPH and there stood a young man with tissues jammed into each nostril.  He was asking for donations and had a petition, for which he was seeking signatures, calling for the first Bush Administration to hand over power to him and a group with which he was working. 

The tissues-in-his-nostrils guy explained how the Bush crowd was not adequately serving the country, and that he and his friends had a plan to get everything straightened out.  He just knew if he got enough signatures on the petition President Bush and everyone in his administration would agree to a peaceful transfer of power.  As I recall, there even was a target date set for Bush to vacate the White House.  I chose not to sign the petition or make a monetary contribution.  “Not even a dime to cover the cost of photocopying the petition?”  “Sorry, man.”

I admit to being suspicious of anyone who desires to be President of the United States, and those with vast sums of money don’t make me any more comfortable than someone with tissues in his nose.  But, that’s the way it works, and I don’t know how it could be any different.

The people in our society who have serious needs, be they physical or material must be tempted to not even vote.  I know this -- someone isn't voting.  Lots of someones.

I remember something Jay Leno said during the last election:  “The people of the United States are being asked to choose between a rich, white guy from Yale, and a rich, white guy from Yale.”

And that’s exactly what we got. 

Our congregation is in its 50^th year of ministry, all at the same location, although it has moved around a little as buildings gradually appeared on the property.  Even the configuration of the acreage was adjusted through the years.  Next year, 2008, we will spend time remembering and celebrating that half-century.

As we make plans for all of that, we are accumulating and reviewing photographs and documents.  A keepsake calendar is being created, memories and current activities are being recorded, and invitations for speakers and guests are being prepared.  We will enjoy looking back at changing styles and thickness of hair, remembering people who no longer are with us, and reliving significant moments and events.

Things have changed dramatically in fifty years, and our focus on the history and development of our church simply would be self-indulgent without some thought of the future.  It is my belief that God is acting within the life of the church today, calling people of faith to new vitality in our spiritual awareness, and urging us to broaden our perspective on and perceptions of ministry, faithfulness, and the church.

Yes, looking back is important to help us remember who we are, and how God has been present in our lives before.  But, it also is necessary to listen to the direction in which God calls us now, allowing ourselves the freedom to be open and responsive.  Our past doesn’t tie us down, but rather it provides the foundation upon with the future will be built.

Keeping God at the center of our life together as a community is uppermost, for that is why our church, and all others, was established in the first place.  The church is about God, and about following Jesus.  It is about making God’s name known, and being a blessing to others.  The church is a visible sign of the power and persistence of God’s transforming love – in whatever city, town, or even wilderness it is located.

The ways this all is relevant and gets expressed is different now from the ways of fifty years ago.  But one thing is certain:  even after fifty years, with all of the highs and lows, accomplishments and failures, and after all the changes, those welcomed and those begrudged, God’s love is applicable, very necessary, and available. 

Growing up, I was a dedicated fan of baseball, and must admit that I held baseball players in high regard.  I wrote a few fan letters and collected a handful of autographs.  It was my good fortune even to become personally acquainted with a couple of players, Dave Baldwin, a relief pitcher for my hometown Washington Senators, and Ted Kluszewski, who was a big-time power hitter mostly in the National League, a little before my time, but whose baseball camp I attended one year and worked at the next.   I actually became better acquainted with him several years later.

When I knew Big Klu, he was the hitting instructor for the Cincinnati Reds and their fabled “Big Red Machine,” featuring Johnny Bench, Pete Rose, Tony Perez, Joe Morgan, and others.  Klu died in 1988.  Dave Baldwin, who also played for the Milwaukee Brewers and Chicago White Sox, still is a friend and regular correspondent.  He lives on the opposite side of the continent, but we have managed a few visits through the years.

Lately, it seems, numerous accomplished professional athletes, baseball players among them, have become anti-heroes and definitely not positive role models for young people.  Pete Rose got himself in lots of trouble with gambling and lying about it.  Barry Bonds is a controversial figure, with suspicions of performance-enhancing drugs clouding his recent ascendance to become the all-time major league home run leader.   Football players Michael Vick, O.J. Simpson and others also have famously scuffled with the law.  The list goes on.

Christian Century notes that as 2007 is the 60^th anniversary of Jackie Robinson becoming the first African-American to play major league baseball in the modern era (not to mention also the 35^th anniversary of his passing at age 53), little has been mentioned of his faith commitments and civil rights work.

Jackie Robinson, according to the news item, was a member of the United Church of Christ, was a leader in men’s ministries within the church, and also took part in social ministries sponsored by the National Conference of Christians and Jews, and the National Council of Churches.

Jackie Robinson was known as a “race man,” in the sense that he was proud of his African-American heritage and did much to raise the consciousness of our society on the value of positive race relations, and to help people who endured oppression because of who they were.

Jackie Robinson was more than a baseball player, although he was an outstanding performer in the game that likely was his worst sport.  He was an exceptional athlete in college football as well as track and field prior to playing pro baseball.

A forthcoming book by Michael G. Long, First Class Citizenship:  The Civil Rights Letters of Jackie Robinson, fills in some of the gaps about a memorable person whose brief life made a lasting impact on the lives of many people, even to this day.

I think the UCC must be proud of this member of their church.

According to an article in The Washington Post, some 150 protestors assembled yesterday at the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill “to deliver written rebukes to members of Congress who support President Bush’s Iraq policy.”   Police were tense, because a large anti-war demonstration in Washington last weekend resulted in the arrest of almost 200 people near the Capitol.  Yesterday’s action was tame by comparison.

In fact, agreements were reached prior to the festivities:

“Before leading the group into the building, one of the protest organizers, Medea Benjamin, a founder of the antiwar group Code Pink, approached the officer in charge, Capt. William Hanny of the U. S. Capitol Police. 

‘Okay, if we do anything you don’t want in there, would you give us a warning first? she said.  ‘We don’t want to get arrested today.  We’ve got people catching planes tonight.’

‘We will give you a warning,’ Hanny replied. ‘But it’s going to be up to you.’

‘Because sometimes people want to get arrested,’ she said.  ‘They do what they have to do to get arrested.  This is not one of those days.’

The captain nodded.  ‘Just don’t block the hallways.  Don’t blow whistles.  Don’t cause a disturbance.  Don’t do any of that, and we’ll be okay.’”

Things have changed in my lifetime.  Protests and civil disobedience seem to have more of a “Saturday in the park feel to them than what I recall from the days of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam era.  I also think they are less effective.

It’s almost as if the protests, marches, and days when people “do what they have to do to get arrested” largely are symbolic, and perhaps mainly are somehow therapeutic to the participants.  My impression of much of the unrest in earlier struggles was that there was more of a challenge of those in authority and power, often by people with a lot to lose.

Frankly, mass-produced letters, post cards, and emails have little impact on legislators.  They easily can recognize an orchestrated effort by an interest group.  Getting “face time” with senators or representatives in their Washington offices is extremely difficult, unless you’re backed up by a wheelbarrow filled with cash.

My belief is that the most effective way to influence elected national officials is to make an appointment to them seem in their offices “back home,” attend a town hall type of meeting in which he or she fields questions and comments from the audience, and to write your own letter on an issue.

When you meet with, or write to a politician, always be polite (if you wish to be taken seriously); briefly note their policy positions with which you share some common ground; succinctly and clearly state your views on the issue on which you disagree; say why you disagree with them; and let them know who you represent, if you are speaking on behalf of anyone besides yourself.  It also helps to develop and on-going relationship with your legislator, so that as they know what you’re thinking and how you’re reacting to the concerns of the day, more of a give-and-take approach can develop.

Protesting public policy directions and issues is a legitimate and important means of expression in our society.  Doing it to put notches in your belt is a waste of everyone’s time

Treating others as you wish to be treated, and living a life consistent with the values expressed in your protest can facilitate meaningful change.

At the one of the churches in which I was a pastor, there was a dignified man, very devoted to the church, involved in Christian education, and genuinely concerned for the well-being of others.  He served as an elder in the congregation, and took seriously the role of spiritual leader. His prayers at the communion table always were relevant and eloquent.

One day following an elder’s meeting, he lingered to speak with me about a concern.  Our conversation ranged beyond the matter he expressed to me, and after we had spoken for quite some time he shared something about himself that he insisted I keep confidential.

He was a clown.

Yes, that’s right.  He told me he was a clown.  He spent time at pediatric wards and other places where there were children, especially children with some sort of difficulty or need.  He visited them, painted their faces, performed simple magic tricks, played games with them – anything he could think of to bring them a little happiness.

This man told me he attended clown conventions and even wrote a regular column in a related national publication.  As you may have guessed, I was astounded to learn of this aspect of the man’s life.  I’m not quite sure why he insisted it remain a secret, but I was honored that he took me into his confidence.

People have many ways by which they give expression to their faith.  Their lives are complex, and spiritual gifts vary from individual to individual.  It’s always wonderful to see when a person finds his or her niche, and that they derive a sense of fulfillment from the ways they share the love of Christ with others.  Some teach Sunday school.  Some sing or play music.  Others visit homebound folks.  Still others drive people to their doctor’s appointments, or take them shopping.  All are vital ways of bringing light into someone’s life.

And some, simply put, are clowns.

Yesterday, a roadside bomb killed Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the head of the Anbar Salvation Council.  He was credited with cooperating with the U.S. in organizing effectively to stem the tide of some of the terrorist violence in Iraq.  President Bush met with Abu Risha in Iraq less than two weeks ago to thank him for his efforts. 

Those opposed to Abu Risha already had killed four of his brothers and six other relatives.  Mourners attending Abu Risha’s funeral shouted, “We will get our revenge.”  So, the cycle of violence continues.  Sometimes we shake our head in wonder at the barbarism we see in other cultures. 

It’s a wonder why, though. 

In Miami, a young African-American man opened fire on police during a traffic stop, killing one officer and wounding several others.  Police officers from across the state swarmed to Miami to join in a manhunt for the suspect, and when they found him, the results were predictable. He was shot dead.  There was no arrest or trial. 

A similar case unfolded in Florida a year or two ago.  Again, police from around the state hunted down an African-American man who shot and killed a police officer during a traffic stop.   When they found him, more than 100 rounds from police weapons obliterated him.  I guess they wanted to make sure he was dead.  No sense arresting him and putting him on trial.  Instant justice. 

The cycle of violence continues.  Many factors contribute, whether you consider the culture in the Middle East, or the culture here at home. 

In both cases, solutions are sought through deadly force, and the problems continue.