The Roman Catholic Archbishop of St. Louis said, in response to a question, that if presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, or any other candidate, “had been admonished” for violating church doctrine, he would turn that candidate away from communion.  In the case of Giuliani – and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) during the last presidential election cycle – the archbishop objects to his history of supporting abortion rights.  When asked about his response to a candidate’s support of the death penalty or pre-emptive war, the archbishop replied, “It’s a little more complicated in that case.”

Why is it more complicated?  Both run up against the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.”  Maybe it’s because those being killed “in that case” are “bad guys,” or “the enemy.”  Maybe the archbishop feels they deserve to be killed, despite Jesus’ teaching to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”   I guess the archbishop’s idea is to allow everyone to be born, and we’ll sort out later who we want to keep around.  I presume he has a vote in the decision.

Flippant characterizations aside, I’m not intent on criticizing the archbishop.  But the notion of denying access to communion doesn’t compute in my mind.  To me, communion is not a reward or something that people earn the right to deserve.  It’s not up to me, or anyone else, to turn someone away from the table to which Christ invited them.

My perception is that Jesus said, “Remember me when you eat and drink together” precisely because he knew we would falter, he knew we would be tempted to uncritically embrace the ways of the world.  Jesus knew spiritual strength is found when believers come together for communion, and that in remembering him we also remember who we are called to be.  It seems to me, we need to encourage people to share in communion rather than keep them away.

If we included only those who “deserved” to approach the table, there wouldn’t be much need for bread and grape juice -- just enough for those who make the rules.  The biblical image of a heavenly feast would become a sad, ironic joke.

Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) statement that he would prefer a Christian in the White House stirred a strong reaction.  His assertion that the United States was established as a Christian nation is addressed by Welton Gaddy, head of the Interfaith Alliance.  Many people, of course, make the same claim as McCain.  However, it is false.  Only Christians, of course, say it, but in doing so they reveal their misunderstanding of U.S. history and of the Christian faith itself.

Read what Welton has to say about this.

Great will be the day when religious faith no longer is used as a political strategy, tool, or deception.

I don't look for that day to arrive soon, however.

A couple in Portland, Oregon made plans to be married.  They weren’t church folks, apparently, because they found a minister on Craigslist.com who specialized in “last-minute weddings."  A friend of theirs offered to officiate at the ceremony, but the couple discovered that their friend’s credentials were questionable.

So, they hired the online last-minute specialist, and she led a brief ceremony in the couple’s home.  It turned into a disaster, because the “minister” stole the couple’s wedding gifts.  They were remodeling their kitchen, so they asked their guests for Home Depot gift cards in lieu of regular wedding presents.  At one point in the festivities the minister was alone in the house, and after she later took her leave, the couple noticed very few gift cards were left.  Not wanting to accuse the minister – the one they found online at the last minute – the couple explored other explanations of what might have happened.  Finally, the minister became a suspect, and a little detective work and a review of Home Depot surveillance cameras revealed the truth.

“If you can’t trust someone to officiate over your wedding, who can you trust in this world?” asked a detective involved in the case.

It’s a shame they had such a negative experience.  It’s too bad they don’t take seriously the church and clergy.  Hiring a minister to perform a religious service when there is no connection to the community of faith makes no sense to me.  My view is that a wedding is an outgrowth of life in the Christian community, and that a bride or groom, or both, nurtured in the church, comes with her or his partner in life to seek God’s blessing on their love and commitment to each other.  It’s all wrapped up in faith and faithfulness. 

It’s difficult for me to see all of that playing out when a minister is called in to “do the wedding.”  Sometimes when I hear about such an arrangement, I wonder, “Who’s using who?”

As one of my favorite professors in seminary used to say, “You pays your money and you takes your chances.”

In writing an article titled, “Logical Path From Religious Beliefs To Evil Deeds,” Richard Dawkins quotes Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg:  “With or without (religion) you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.  But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”

Dawkins’ article states that religion changes one’s perception of good, in effect, making it relative.  That is, while most religious people abhor violence, some religious folks justify its use if the situation requires it in order to fulfill some misguided sense of righteousness.  Dawkins refers to the Taliban, and to the 9/11 attackers, among others.

Religion has been used to justify oppression of various groups of people.  It is employed as a vehicle for judgment and repression.  Dawkins states, “It is easy for religious faith, even if it is irrational in itself, to lead a sane and decent person, by rational, logical steps, to do terrible things.”

It’s difficult to dispute Dawkins on this point.  The contention over abortion has led to some cases of people, considering themselves “pro-life,” to take the lives of those who differ in opinion.  When Terri Schiavo was in her final days, there were some religious folk threatening healthcare workers at the hospice in-patient unit where she was a resident.  On a smaller scale, sometimes when people say, “I’ll pray for you,” you realize they really are saying, “You’re wrong.  You’re no good.  Get ready for extreme heat and the smell of sulfur.”

While conceding Richard Dawkins his point, I want to add that another, related reality exists, as well.  That is, people who don’t take their religion seriously also contribute to the problem of evil in the world.  Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of the “conspiracy of silence,” in relation to matters of social justice and peace.  So often, people of faith are silent because there is nothing they know to say; no insight derived from prayer and discernment; no prophetic word of hope for the transformation of human hearts; and, no reminder of the demands of peace.  The Source of these is minimized, compartmentalized, or just simply under-utilized.

Is selfishness the driving force in the ways religion is used or not used?  In both cases, God seems to be overlooked.  Who’s left?

Senator and presidential-candidate John McCain (R- AZ) recently stated that he would prefer to see a Christian as president of the United States.  In the same interview, McCain allowed that a Muslim could be president if “he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values.”  There was no mention in this report of his opinion of a potential Jewish president.

Sen. McCain grew up as an Episcopalian, but has been attending a Baptist church for a number of years.  He considered being immersed in the Baptist church, but so far has refrained.  He especially doesn’t want to be baptized during the presidential campaign, because “it might appear as if I was doing something I otherwise wouldn’t do.”

Choosing to be baptized in order to attract votes might be a new one.  People have submitted to baptism to satisfy a spouse.  I had one case in my experience where a woman wanted to be “re-baptized” when she was dealing with matters of parole and sentence reduction.  Didn’t happen.  Another person floated the idea of her firstborn baby being baptized, “just to be sure,” even though she knew we don’t practice infant baptism in our tradition.  I reminded her why we would not be doing it.   Many people in the Disciples tradition are baptized at an “age of accountability,” usually in the range of 10 – 12 years of age, with scant awareness of the biblical story or the meaning of salvation.

As with everything else we do – in the church and beyond – there is imperfection in our practice of baptism.  I think something significant to note, though, is that whenever there is a baptism in a Disciples church, it is a happy occasion.  Not just because baptisms often are few and far between in many of our congregations, but because the faith of the community is present and at work on such an occasion.

Sure, people rejoicing at the baptisms would be hard-pressed to explain the classical theories of atonement.  Some might not be able specifically to recall everything that went into their own decision to confess faith in Jesus as their Savior and submit to baptism.  But, Christians see hope in someone being baptized.  Christians have faith that God is present in the person’s life and in the moment of baptism.  Christians understand on a “soul-level” that God’s reign is expanding at least another few inches when a baptism occurs, because the Holy Spirit is a participant in the act.

Sometimes, I think, good can happen, and God can work miracles, even when our own motivations are subject to scrutiny.

A radio program I listened to years ago on the way to work during morning rush hour did a bit called “The Kevin Bacon Game.”   The game was based on the “Six Degrees of Separation” idea, where people always can connect themselves to someone else in six steps. 

In the game on the radio, callers named an actor, and the DJ had to connect that person back to Kevin Bacon in six steps or less.  Someone might call and say, “Elizabeth Taylor,” and the DJ would say “She was in Such and Such movie with So and So, who was in The Next Movie with Whoozits, who was in Yet Another Flick with Kevin Bacon.  You get the idea.

A few days ago I mentioned my acquaintance with some major league baseball players, and they were the only people who stood between me and such players as Jackie Robinson, Willie Mays, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, and Hank Aaron.  I was two steps from Babe Ruth.  It’s kind of amazing to think about.

You can think of examples from your own life, where one person you know, knows another, who knows another, and before long, you have a link to a president, a television actor, an author, or someone else.

I guess it all shows the connectedness of the human family, and that despite the barriers we place between ourselves and others, it would not take long to close the gaps created by those barriers.

The text for this coming Sunday is the story of the rich man and Lazarus.  It is a story of gaps, barriers, and separation.  The effects of the separation are devastating, and in telling this parable, Jesus sounds pretty resigned to the fact that we will do little to overcome it.

The first step in doing so is bridging the gap between ourselves and Jesus himself, who shows us what it means to be loving and compassionate toward others, regardless of who they are.  We get to know Jesus better by spending time in worship, prayer, study, service and other spiritual disciplines.  As we grow closer to him, we re-discover our connection to other people.

The ironic thing is, the only ones standing between us and Jesus usually is ourselves.

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.