Elison Research, via the Religious News Service, was cited in the current issue of The Christian Century, giving a USA Today-type graphic called “Americans on sin.”  The box states, “Eighty seven percent of Americans believe in the concept of sin.  What counts as sinful behavior?  Here’s the percentage of Americans who view certain activities as sinful:

                              81%                 Adultery

                              74%                 Racism

                              65%                 Use of hard drugs

                              56%                 Abortion

                              52%                 Homosexual activity

                              52%                 Underreporting income

                              30%                 Gambling

                              29%                 Telling a ‘little white lie’”

No definition of the word “sin” is given in the graphic, but a commonly-held meaning is “separation from God.”  Do any or all of these “sins” listed above meet the criteria?

Well, I suppose it depends on who is doing the justifying.  The survey respondents are described as “Americans,” as opposed to “Christians,” or “Religious People.”  So, perhaps the definition of sin somehow even takes on a more secular slant when used as part of a survey such as this one.

It seems here as if sin is linked to personal or individual morality, which makes me wonder whether any of the respondents would see debilitating poverty in the midst of suffocating affluence as a sin.   Or, how about poor stewardship of natural resources, and the trashing of the environment?  Sin?  Or not?  What about the effects of war, not only on the people who live where the war is waged, but also on the mental and physical well-being of those sent to fight?  The frequency of suicide among active-duty U. S. military personnel is reaching a new wartime high.  Depression is pervasive among battle survivors.  Does any of this constitute sin?  To me, it seems the layers run very deep.

Fifty or more years ago, a popular book was titled, Whatever Became Of Sin?  My sense is sin largely is viewed as something an individual does.  Each person is responsible for his or her own behavior, a natural descendant of the frontier “rugged individualism” that characterized the growth of our nation.

Sometimes I have the impression we apply that to our faith, as well, and it becomes “all about me.”  So, we try to discern the path to heaven, overlooking the bigger picture of how “all about me” contributes to “not about anyone else,” and separation, alienation, and bitterness increase.

The visit to the United States, and specifically to Washington, DC, by Pope Benedict XVI raises some interesting issues.  As I write this, Roman Catholics are filling Nationals Park in the nation’s capital for a mass to be celebrated by the Pope himself.  Included among the worshipers are numerous Catholic members of Congress.  Some of them are supporters of abortion rights, placing them at odds with official teaching of the Catholic Church.

During recent political campaigns, various Catholic bishops have publically criticized candidates for such a stance, and indicated they would deny those candidates a place at the communion table.  If they don’t endorse the church’s position, they don’t get communion, in the minds of these bishops.

A group of U.S. lawmakers signed a letter several years ago protesting public statements by church leaders who sought to exclude them from the sacrament.  They wrote, “If Catholic legislators are scorned and held out for ridicule by Church leaders on the basis of a single issue, the Church will lose strong advocates on a wide range of issues that relate to the core of important Catholic social teaching.”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA), during his presidential campaign four years ago, was among those whom bishops said should be excluded from communion.  The senator sees a larger picture:  “Pope Benedict’s historic visit is an important opportunity for Catholics and for all Americans to reflect on the ways we can contribute to the common good, address global issues of poverty, disease and despair.”

In fairness, most of the 250 bishops in the United States allow parishioners to make their own decisions regarding worthiness to receive communion.

In my tradition, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), we have no creeds, no tests of fellowship, or any person making decisions about who may receive communion.  We practice an open table.

In our view, we are not looking for worthiness to be at the table.  We are encouraging everyone to come to the table in order to experience the presence of the Risen Christ, and to be transformed by his spirit.  If folks were “worthy,” why would there be a need for communion?

I’ve shared communion with racists, liars, liberals, conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, pro-lifers, pro-choicers, fundamentalists, GLBT folks, and who knows who else.

And they have shared it with me.  Thank God we have been invited to the table by the One who promises new, blessed, abundant, and eternal life – which none of us is capable of earning on our own.

There is an old bromide that goes, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.  Teach him to use the Internet, and he’ll leave you alone for months.”  Actually, now there is a project that combines the best of both statements.

I saw this on the news last evening.  There is a website called Free Rice that links the interactivity of a web-based game with providing help for hungry people.  The game is a vocabulary-builder in which the player is given a word and several definition choices.  For each correct answer, grains of rice are donated through the World Food Programme.

The rest of the site gives information about hunger, where the rice comes from, who pays for it, and so on.

The sad reality in our world is that tens of thousands of people die every day from hunger and related health issues.  There is not an even distribution of food resources across the globe, and sometimes when food is donated to famine areas, it is intercepted and never reaches the intended recipients.

Free Rice is one attempt to address this urgent human need.  Give it a look, learn a few new words in the process, and help feed a starving brother or sister.

I'll be back here next week. 

Meanwhile, here are some video clips to enjoy:

John McCain/David Letterman

Seinfeld has an overdue library book

George Costanza -- Marine Biologist

Cab Calloway sings "Minnie The Moocher"

Billy Crystal challenges the ice cream king

Andre the Giant has a unique talent

Andy Kaufman on SNL

I remember quite well the foreboding pillars of smoke from angry fires, the epidemic looting and stony-faced National Guard troops in Washington following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. in Memphis on April 4, 1968 – forty years ago today.  

I think some folks in the suburbs – our neighbors – worried that inner-city rage and violence actually was a threat to their detached observation of the world.  I’m not sure how the rioters were supposed to get to us, though.  There was no subway in Washington in those days, many of the people involved didn’t have the means to own cars, and I doubt they were going to look for exact change to catch a bus.   It was too far to walk.   

Shortly after King’s death, Resurrection City, a community of plywood shanties and tents for those participating in the Poor Peoples' Campaign, was slapped together on the national mall in the midst of persistent and inhospitable rain.  It became a muddy symbol of the plight of those who came to confront the rest of us, including the elect, who shakily tried to maintain the “good old days.”

What a time it was, and I likely will spend the rest of my life trying to understand it, attempting to piece together the dynamics and factors that thickened the air. 

A wealth of information about it all can be found here.

Recently, I sent a friend a birthday card that showed Al Gore on the cover asking, “You’re putting HOW MANY candles on your birthday cake?”  On the inside he continued, “What did the polar ice caps ever do to you?”

Of course, the former U.S. Senator and Vice President is known for his attention to environmental issues, especially global warming.  His work not only has raised awareness of the changing climate of our world, but earned him a share of a Nobel Peace Prize. 

Yesterday, Gore announced a huge undertaking:  a campaign to significantly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.  Through an intensive advocacy effort, to include “advertising, online organizing, and partnerships with grass roots groups,” Gore and the Alliance for Climate Protection intend to provide education on the related issues, encouragement in lobbying lawmakers, and practical approaches for individuals and organizations concerned with global warming.  It will be a bipartisan effort, highlighting the fact that, not only are we all in this together, but that some former skeptics finally are acknowledging the realities facing our planet.

The cost is high, some $300 million over the next three years.  Gore himself is throwing down in a big way, including his personal profits from the book and movie, An Inconvenient Truth, his Nobel cash, and a matching contribution from his own wealth. He and the Alliance believe many Americans are committed to the cause, and in making known his plans yesterday said, “When politicians hear the American people calling loud and clear for change, they’ll listen.”

Let’s hope so.  Kermit the Frog was famous for singing, “It’s not easy being green,” and while that may be true, what other choice does humanity really have?

Every now and then I run up against the notion that people admire those who are extremely wealthy.  Some think highly of Donald Trump, or Bill Gates.  Maybe the admirers see billionaires as role models of what they wish to become themselves, so they buy their books, monitor their movements and techniques, anything to get a clue as to how to join the club.

One time I was in a dentist’s chair when the man with the drill began professing his high regard for the late Jack Kent Cooke.  Cooke was the owner of the Washington Redskins who worked hard to build tremendous wealth in, I believe, communications industries.  He also had a resume’ listing broken marriages, strained family relationships, disgruntled former employees and associates, and an accusation of trying to force his then-wife into seeking an abortion when she became pregnant.  As the high-pitched squeal intensified in my ears, I responded with a simple, “I suppose it depends on who you ask.”

Ted Turner is joining up with Lutherans and Methodists to address the scourge of malaria in Africa.  He has money to contribute and is hoping to build upon some of the successes of church groups involved in international health and development matters.  But Turner had some ‘splainin’ to do when astute members of the media pointed out his previous disdain of Christianity.

In all fairness, Turner suffered the tragic loss of his sister at an early age, and because of this, decided that religion was of no perceivable value.  In fact, he was quoted as describing Christianity as “a religion for losers.”  He mocked employees who observed Ash Wednesday by having ashes placed on their foreheads (I did find his “they should be working for Fox” comment amusing).  But now, he offers intercessory prayers for suffering friends because “it doesn’t hurt,” and has dropped “agnostic” or “atheist” from his self-description.

Turner said, “As I get older, you know, I get more, you know, more tolerant.”  I’m not sure whether he has become more articulate, however.  But, at least he is using some of his wealth to address human needs. 

Turner apparently developed a response to the Ten Commandments, known as the Ten Voluntary Initiatives, and maintains that they guide him in his daily living.  Caring for the earth and people, limiting family size, and helping the poor are among the TVI’s.

“The religious community is huge and has a very good reputation for being able to mobilize resources,” according to Turner.  “Why not use them and be thankful?”

I guess that’s fair, since the church sometimes “uses” rich folks to help us achieve our goals, as well.

In doing any type of physical exertion or exercise, breathing is important.  In martial arts training, we teach people to inhale through the nose and to exhale through the mouth.  Inhaling helps to prepare, or “load up” for a kick or strike.  Exhaling provides extra force as energy is released.  In Tae Kwon Do we even insisted that people yell when executing a technique to further focus the energy released.

In Tai Chi training there is a set of forty-nine exercises designed to increase endurance, flexibility, and strength.  When we practice the exercises in class, our instructor reminds us of proper breathing, and on the exhale he says, “No ugly faces,” even though we are forcing the air through clenched teeth in order to sustain the energy and power needed for the exercises.

In our text for this coming Sunday (John 20:19-31), the disciples of Jesus huddle together in fear in a locked room following the crucifixion of Jesus.  It is the evening of the day of the resurrection and Jesus suddenly appears among them.  The disciples recognize him and he greets them, “Peace be with you.”

Then, as Jesus tells the disciples he is sending them out, just as God sent him, Jesus breathes on them saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

While Jesus directs the disciples to receive the Holy Spirit, there is, I suppose, the option of not receiving it, at least for today’s disciples.  But it seems that proper breathing among followers of Jesus is vital. 

The gift of the Holy Spirit was promised by Jesus to his followers, and indeed, in another Biblical account (Acts 2), the Holy Spirit arrives in dramatic and life-changing fashion.  The effects are immediately evident as Peter finds his voice in a new way, and the hearts of his listeners are touched deeply.  Three thousand unsuspecting by-standers become believers in one day.

We breathe in the Holy Spirit though the practice of spiritual disciplines, such as worship, prayer, study, service, giving, and more.  Our spiritual intake enables us to prepare, or load up, for a release of energy through ministry in the name of Jesus.  It might be volunteering to rebuild storm-damaged homes; it may entail joining together with Christians of various backgrounds to seek responses to hunger or poverty in one’s community; it could be sitting and listening to someone who suffered a devastating loss sort through his or her feelings, anxieties, or confusion.  The Holy Spirit was promised and given, and it sustains our energy and exertion when we endeavor to be faithful.

Proper breathing is essential, and ugly faces are to be avoided!

Martin Copenhaver wrote an article in The Christian Century that I found interesting.  In Handshake Ritual:  Ministry at the Church Door, Copenhaver described the interactions that occur between pastor and congregation at the conclusion of worship as the people depart the church building.  I sometimes wonder how this practice started, with the minister standing at the door to greet everyone as they leave.  Some want to shake hands, others require a hug, and still others leave without a word or even eye contact.

Copenhaver shared the reality of the stress of the ritual.  The concentrated conversations run the gamut of emotions, from the few seconds one has to digest and respond to a bit of bad news or trouble a congregant mentions that he or she is experiencing, to deciphering comments about the sermon, to reacting to requests for information not immediately at hand or on the pastor’s mind, to welcoming and getting acquainted with newcomers, to putting up with the same old jokes told every week.  As Copenhaver put it, “No wonder I come home from worship ready for a nap.”  I know the feeling.

Copenahaver shared some of the memorable exchanges he had at the church door over the years, saying all ministers have their own stories.  I recall one preacher who shared that when he was young and new in the work, an older member made the following comment to him as she left the worship service:  “I just love your sermons so much.  They don’t require us to think at all.”  One I remember from my experience occurred long ago when a man who fancied himself as humorous said, “I have a book at home that has every word of that sermon in it.”  I just looked at him blankly for a few seconds until he continued, “It’s called the dictionary.”  Cue the uproarious laughter.

I have known a preacher or two who reveled in admiration, and the compliments from those admirers, but it always seemed to me it would be more important for church folks to be leaving the sanctuary thinking and talking about God rather than about the preacher. 

Copenhaver had the same observation, relaying a memorable comment from one of his professors:  “We have too many preachers who want to hear their parishioners say, ‘What a great preacher we have,’ and not enough who long to hear them say, ‘What a great God we have.’”

Sheri Klouda teaches Hebrew and Aramaic.  She lost her job a couple of years ago when her employer, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, elected to not renew her contract.  The basic reason for the non-renewal was that Klouda is a woman, and as such, should not be teaching men.  You see, there is a verse in the Bible, in I Timothy, that supposedly was written by the Apostle Paul, in which he states, “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man.” 

When Klouda took the Baptists to court, the case was dismissed in U.S. District Court because “federal courts try to avoid becoming entangled in matters dealing with religious institutions,” according to Klouda, who was not surprised by the ruling.

So, after six years of service on the faculty, Professor Klouda was cast aside.  I’m not sure why it took so long.  Maybe the boys in charge needed to work up their courage to carry out their convictions.  Maybe there was no readily available qualified male replacement until 2006.  Maybe a male student objected to being taught by a woman who knew more than he did.  Maybe, maybe, maybe.

You know, the Baptists can do what they choose to do.  That’s their right. 

It’s ironic, though, that a verse from the Bible, written in a time when girls and women were considered little more than possessions, and were prohibited from formal education, would be applied to someone who obviously is intelligent and has much to offer the church and its leadership.

It’s also ironic – at least to me – that these scholars so enamored with a line from a letter written in the 1^st Century would ignore a stunning bit of evidence found in all four Gospels:  the first people who received the word of God that Jesus was raised from death – the very first witnesses to the resurrection – the ones who first saw the risen Christ and who were instructed to tell the men who were hiding behind locked doors because they were so afraid, were women.

But then, God seems to love irony.