A Lost Sermon from 2020 - Leviticus: Blood and Holiness

Sermon Warrensburg Nov. 9, 2020

Leviticus 19, selections and Mark 12:28-34

In March I preached on the entire book of Deuteronomy.

Because few of you are likely to read the whole thing, 

I was your “sacrificial reader” of difficult and at first glance, boring, books.

My reason for doing that was that I saw a connection 

between the laws in Dt. and the issue of the “rule of law” 

in our current national politics.

It proved quite close and relevant.

The purpose of those laws was to establish fairness, responsibility, and justice, 

in order to have a good society and good lives.

The purpose of our laws and justice system today is the same.

What has changed in 3,000 years

is that we do not assume the laws come from God.

Today I tackle Leviticus.

The purpose of the laws here are different,

but there is no let up in the political ramifications of the Bible.

The laws and instructions in Leviticus have parallels to our own time 

but they are not exactly legal.

Here is the setting and a brief outline of Leviticus:

Moses and the Hebrews are in the desert after Moses 

has received the 10 commandments and a tent of meeting has been set up 

to house the ark of the covenant.

The Lord, Yahweh, summons Moses, speaks to him from the tent, 

and gives orders to him.

These first 7 chapters are shocking and puzzling to us.

We suddenly find ourselves in the midst of instructions 

about how to carry out various sacrifices.

These are detailed instructions for butchering cows, sheep, goats, 

and dissecting birds; 

and how to cook them and how to dispose of the remnants.

And there are a few more relaxing recipes 

for baking with grains, for grain offerings.

The detail about these offerings is intense.

Which organs do you burn in offering 

and which parts do you burn outside the tent?

What meat is for God, which is for the priests, and which is for the people?

And what do we do with the blood? 

We dash it against the altar, we mark the corners of the altar with it, 

the priests throw it against the people.

By dealing with blood, life and death become real, 

and everyone of us who has seen a crime or a horror film 

knows the awe of this.

Blood is the ultimate symbol of life.

In Genesis it was mentioned in passing that 

“You shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” [Gen 9:4]

In Leviticus we learn that God says “the life of the flesh is in the blood; 

and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar;

for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement.” [Lev 17:11]

This is repeated throughout Leviticus.

And the fat surrounding the vital organs belongs to the Lord. 

The subcutaneous fat is to be discarded.

The organs and their fat are burnt offerings to God, 

whom we are told will be pleased with the odor rising to heaven.

It is as if the Hebrews are feeding God, to satisfy his hunger for meat.

The burnt offerings are for various purposes, some for sin, and for guilt.

Some are what we used to read as “peace offerings.” 

The new translations call this an offering of “Well-being,” confusing to me.

It is a blessing of any meat which the people will eat for sustenance and life.

Sin here mostly involves touching things that are unclean.

Like body fluids, dead bodies, mold, skin eruptions, and eating unclean animals. 

Sin offerings to forgive and to make oneself clean again are complicated: 

Did the sinner know that he had sinned? 

Was it intentional or unintentional? 

Who sinned? Was it a priest? Or a layman? Was it the whole people, the tribe? 

Or was it a judge or the ruler? 

Different rituals are prescribed for each situation and perpetrator.

--------------

Why is Moses and why are the people asked to make these sacrifices?

What is this about?

Leviticus is ancient. Parts of it were probably written before 1000 BC.

First, There is a deep memory here of Abraham offering his son, Isaac, 

to God as a sacrifice because Yahweh commanded it.

We are told the story in Genesis as if it were a test of faith.

But the story of Abraham and Isaac 

is itself a deeper memory of a more ancient past

when human sacrifice was common 

and accepted as necessary and right.

Moses lived in more humane times, when animals and birds and grains 

substitute for humans to satisfy God.

Second, if you have to have sacrifices and offerings, 

you need priests, and a special place to conduct these rituals.

We are witnessing here in Leviticus the birth of an institution,

as we saw the legal institution created, or borrowed and expanded, in Dt. 

Here a cultus, the sociologists call it, is being created, 

or probably borrowed and expanded,

It is a system of religious and political organization and control.

In the years that follow the movable tent will give way to a permanent temple.

A permanent altar will be established, and blood will no longer be shed on it.

In Christian churches the altar will come to symbolize 

the death of Jesus as a sacrifice, 

And during the Reformation up to our own time 

priests with godly powers will become ministers,

and later will include men and women.

And the altar itself will give way to the communion table we know.

around which we share bread and wine as symbols of blood and flesh.

 --------------

But there is more to know: if sacrifices are the answer, what is the question?

These sacrificial offerings answer basic questions:

How do we please God, how do we get on the right side of God, 

especially when our consciences tell us we have done wrong?

How do we deal with our different needs for blessings 

and the different kinds of wrongs that are committed 

and which need to be atoned for?

I said earlier that blood was used for atonement, 

one of those religious technical terms. 

Atonement is first of all reparation or payment for wrongs done.

Atonement is redress, restitution, or redemption.

In atonement we are making amends.

It is reconciliation of God and humankind.

It is “at-one-ment,” the making of different parties to a lawsuit, one.

Or as the signs and billboards in the fields of Minnesota declared fifty years ago,

“Get Right with God!”

These sacrificial offerings were made to achieve blessing and forgiveness 

and reintegration of offenders into the community 

when they have done wrong.

By following the ritual, appointing the right people to lead it, 

who wear the assigned clothing and take the prescribed actions; 

when they give the appropriate directions and say the right prayers, 

then God will be satisfied and come near to the people again,

and accept them.

We will know that this has been accomplished 

because the altar and the priests and the people will be covered with blood.

It will be a fearful experience and sight 

that will convince us of the power of God and of the priests.

The ordination of priests requires even more blood. [Chapters 8-10] 

Lots of blood. The sacrifice of two rams to ordain the priests.

To ordain Aaron as high priest a bull calf, a sheep, and a goat, 

all without blemish, are butchered.

The priests must be better than the people: 

So they cannot drink wine or strong drink;

they must avoid the unclean or they will die.

We are only up to chapter 10, but I will move along more quickly.

Chapters 11-15 are about temporary uncleanliness and impurity:

Touching or eating animals and birds that are unclean, touching bodily fluids, 

and skin diseases, and the mixing of fabrics make one unclean.

Yes, we are all unclean because of the clothing we wear today.

There are instruction on how to cleanse houses where lepers have lived, 

and then more on what to do about bodily fluids.

Chapters 16 and 17 are about the annual Day of Atonement.

Here we learn about ritual and vestments and sacrifices 

that will return us to acceptance by God. 

Here we learn of “the mercy seat,” 

the cover on the ark or box in which the covenant was kept.

Here we learn about the “scapegoat,”

how priests wrote down the sins of the people and who committed them,

and then drove the goat out into the wilderness 

to be attacked and killed by wild animals.

Chapters 18-20 are about Moral Purity, holiness, sexual integrity, care for the poor

Here is the text for today.

Leviticus 19, selections:

When you reap the harvest of your land, 

you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, 

or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 

You shall not strip your vineyard bare, 

or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; 

you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: 

I am the Lord your God.

You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; 

and you shall not lie to one another. 

And you shall not swear falsely by my name, 

profaning the name of your God: I am the Lord.

You shall not defraud your neighbor; you shall not steal; and 

you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a laborer until morning. 

You shall not revile the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind; 

you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.

You shall not render an unjust judgment; 

you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: 

with justice you shall judge your neighbor. 

You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, 

and you shall not profit by the blood of your neighbor.

You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; 

you shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself. 

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people,

but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

You shall not let your animals breed with a different kind; 

you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; 

nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials.

[We are all guilty of this. 

These rules may have sensible reasons, which I will not discuss here.]

If a man has sexual relations with a woman who is a slave, 

designated for another man but not ransomed or given her freedom, 

an inquiry shall be held. 

They shall not be put to death, since she has not been freed; 

but he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord, 

at the entrance of the tent of meeting, a ram as guilt offering. 

[We see here how slavery and rape were handled; 

by these rules people at least knew that rape was wrong.]

You shall not eat anything with its blood. 

You shall not practice augury or witchcraft. 

You shall not round off the hair on your temples 

or mar the edges of your beard. 

You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead 

or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord.

Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, 

Do not turn to mediums or wizards; do not seek them out.

You shall rise before the aged, and defer to the old.

 

When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien.

The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; 

you shall love the alien as yourself, 

for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

You shall not cheat in measuring length, weight, or quantity. 

You shall have honest balances, honest weights: 

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. 

You shall keep all my statutes and all my ordinances, and observe them: 

I am the Lord.

Back to sermon:

Many of these laws are repeated from Deuteronomy.

It is likely that the writers of Dt. Inserted some of this into Leviticus.

But these laws are placed here for a different reason: 

It isn’t to set up a legal code, a justice system, and a legal institution 

to create a rule of law, in which abstract laws 

are above the rule of a king who also must obey them.

as it was in Deuteronomy.

Instead they are rules of moral and religious behavior.

These rules are here not first of all because of the desire 

for a well functioning society,

but because God is seen and experienced as holy, 

and therefore the people must be holy.

The core of this book is called the Holiness Code.

For the Christian who has been shaken by all the blood and the rules in this book,

the statement “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” jumps off the page

like the rabbit jumps out from under my deck when I come outside.

All the rules here are given because God is holy, 

and therefore the people must be holy.

The priests and the people will be holy, set apart from all their neighbors,

by the different and righteous ways they live.

The core of Leviticus is called the holiness code [17-26] for this reason.

To be Holy is to be perfect in goodness and righteousness.

I thought of having us sing Holy Holy Holy this morning.

It was sung frequently in church when I was a child.

I thought it was both scary and glorious. That is what holiness is meant to be.

Holy, Holy, Holy, though the darkness hide Thee,

Though the eye of sinfulness Thy glory may not see

Only thou art holy; there is none beside thee,

perfect in power, in love and purity.

You shall be holy, Leviticus says, for I the Lord your God am holy.

-----------------

But I am always asking, “What are the values inherent in this description 

of these sacrifices and the institution of this priesthood?”

A few years ago I preached on Jonathan Haidt’s book on values, 

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Haidt is a social scientist and has identified six sets of values 

Care as opposed to Harm. 

This includes security over lack of safety and fear. 

Liberty from Oppression

Fairness without Cheating

In a general sort of way Deuteronomy is about these values and problems.

The next sets of values are:

Loyalty not Betrayal

Authority not Subversion

Sanctity or holiness or purity not Degradation and sin over uncleanness

These are the values and troubles Leviticus is concerned with.

They are conservative values which are needed by every society.

Loyalty is about maintaining community.

Authority is about living within social and political norms and rules.

At the extreme authority is demanded by a hierarchy,

so that we are supposed to give deference to those above us.

In our time it is respecting institutions because of the good they give to us:

Not only religious institutions, yes, 

but also educational, medical, economic, and social institutions.

Sanctity is about perfection of purity.

At the end of Leviticus we read about God’s blessings on those who obey

and curses on the faithless who are hostile to God.

Fortunately, and unfortunately, depending on your point of view,

God will not strike us dead

and our legal system will not allow priests or dictators to do so.

Marcus Borg in a great little book, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time [1994], 

explained the purity system and why Jesus opposed it:

These rules are NOT just about religion or social customs

This is a political system.

A way of dividing and separating and controlling people.

One of the easiest ways to control people, 

is to declare some people as impure and unclean – 

The sick, the poor, the immigrant, and the homeless.

We can see the good side to rules about cleanliness.

It prevents sickness, but such rules can control people in cruel ways; 

We are suspicious of Puritans, who want to fit us into boxes.

Here is the fight between those of us who wear masks 

so that we and those we come in contact with do not get the coronavirus,

and those who see masks as an infringement on their freedom

and interference is business.

But it is a false freedom to choose a sickness we do not fully understand,

Jesus challenged the laws governing pollution and purity

so that the people would be free to love their neighbors.

This is very different than being willing to sacrifice 

our neighbors and our loved ones.

The basic problem with Leviticus is obvious: We cannot be perfect in holiness.

The good news is that ancient Israel never lived strictly under these laws anyway.

They were the ideal, and the model for a religious way of life under law 

that would allow Israel to live by it’s covenant with God 

even when there was no land or temple or king. 

It was written when they were losing it all,

but they remained a people, who gave to us both law and liberty

because they never forgot and they never forget

that their ancestors had been slaves in Egypt.

May we not forget their creation of social norms and the rule of law. Amen.

Two Thoughts and More for Easter This Year

(I Samuel 8:1-22; The Gospel of John 20:19-31; The Gospel of Thomas 1-3) 

I have two of everything today.

I have two short sermons. Which make a long sermon!

When I go for months without preaching, I accumulate much to say. 

The first sermon is an overview of all of human history and the Bible, all in just a few minutes!

The second is a more personal and pastoral sermon.

This is for those who live in their heads and those who live in their hearts.

Most of us live in both places.

The first pair:

There have been two ways that people have lived in human history.

Many people lived in families and tribes, hunted and herded animals, and raised crops.

They traded with each other and lived in relative peace with each other. 

But everywhere in some places and in all times there was change, which led to differences, 

        followed by conflict and violence. 

All conflict arises from change: we either want change or we oppose it.

Leaders came forward; some good and some bad, but always some who love power 

        or who come to love power when in a position of authority.

Many who love power accumulate great wealth, and for some reason oppress the poor.

Wealth is power because it can buy almost anything and almost anyone.

Wealth is the power to compel and control.

Most of us have been greatly blessed.

A professor in seminary impressed me with this thought:

If you and I had been born anywhere else at any other time, 

        we would have been peasants, serfs, or perhaps slaves, poor and needy, possibly sick and weak. 

Life was brutish and short for the 99%.

If measured by all who have ever lived, we are in the upper 1% or .1% in wealth.

Those of us here today have lived in what may have been the longest period 

        of peace and prosperity in the history of the world. 

We did not know this in our lifetimes, as we lived through it, 

and we are mostly less than grateful having taken it all for granted.

To teach us what we need to know, there have been wise story tellers, 

        who wrote wisdom to last through the ages for our benefit.

So we have the Bible as such a repository of wisdom, but not everything in it is wisdom 

and some of it is easily misused to our detriment.

My point is this:

If you are concerned and worried about the times in which we live, 

rest assured that there have been worse times and events, 

         worse leaders, worse economic turmoil, greater reason to fear war, famine, and plague. 

Most people have worried about all these things forever.

And there are always the few who have wealth sufficient to avoid everything except death and taxes 

(but they have found many ways to avoid taxes and even to prolong life beyond what is natural).

There is nothing new under the sun.

--------------

The Second Pair:

There are two major stories in the Bible.

Most of us are so overwhelmed by the size and variety in the Bible, that we do not see them.

The Hebrew scriptures tell of the Exodus, led by Moses, and 

the Greek scriptures tell us of the Resurrection of Jesus.

The Bible is constructed around those two stories.

What we need to know is that both stories are about freedom.

But what came before freedom?

For the Jews it was slavery in Egypt.

They were oppressed by Pharoah, a dictator whose rule was law.

As a matter of interest, there was no written law in ancient Egypt,

so later the Jews made sure that they had written laws.

In Egypt the Pharoah or king was the ruler; the king was law.

With a rule of law the law is king, as Thomas Paine taught us.

The Hebrews said this law was given and enforced by the true king, who is God.

Ancient Israel had a terrible controversy about government and leadership:

Here we have A third pair:

There are two different histories of ancient Israel, woven together into what seems like one.

As you read it you can see that some verses favor a king, 

and the next verses tell how terrible they are.

Usually the winners write history, but the ancient Levites wanted to preserve this dispute.

These Levites warned the people of all the terrible things that would happen

if they had a king like all their neighboring countries.

They knew that they had to proclaim the unseen God as the true and only King, 

and the rule of law in order to maintain freedom of the people.

[That would be another sermon on how the law gives us freedom.]

So in these two competing narratives about kings, we have stories of great kings 

who were heros to be praised, like David,

        and stories of kings who were corrupt, even mentally deficient, 

        and who led the people into unnecessary wars, like Saul.

The ancient Hebrews fell into slavery again and again.

--------------

Before the resurrection of Jesus there was the Roman Empire,

just as before the Exodus there was Pharoah. 

The Jews in the time of Jesus, ruled by the Romans, were again in a kind of slavery.

Jesus addressed this slavery by telling people to live by God’s values and rules, 

to live in God’s Empire (or Kingdom) 

    as if the Romans were irrelevant because Caesar was not God. 

When Jesus was killed his followers were able to hold on to and hold up the values of God 

        and God’s Empire that Jesus had taught them.

So powerful was this experience of Jesus, their loss of him,

his teachings and his healings, that he lived on for them, in them.

I think that their experience of their loss of Jesus, and their response to it, 

they called all this his resurrection.

The followers of Jesus experienced his resurrection as a new freedom 

that transcended and overcame all of the problems of life, even death.

This is my reading of the Bible. It may be shocking to some.

--------------

But there are two ways to read the Bible, a fourth pair:

In an odd, mystical way, as we read the bible, the bible reads us.

We can look at a single story within the larger story and feel ourselves written into that story.

It becomes real to us in our experience on a psychological level.

The words and metaphors used in that story suddenly apply to us, 

and the story becomes not a story of what happened to others, but our own story.

It becomes a story of our experience in our time and place,

and so a power rises from the story as it becomes greater than the words with which it is written.

We hear the Bible story of Thomas and Jesus and realize that even after Easter, 

when we are supposed to be joyous at the news of resurrection, 

we are afraid like those first disciples:

“When it was evening the doors were locked because they were afraid.”

The text says “for fear of the Jews,” a phrase repeated many times in the gospel of John. 

This is one of those places where scripture is misunderstood and misused.

The gospel of John is often read as a tirade against the Jews, blaming them for his death, 

but it is about conflict among the Jews and all of them in conflict with the Romans.

What is meant is “the authorities,” “in fear of the authorities,”

both Romans and other Jews who worked for them.

That is how I read it. Remember, they were ALL Jews.

So the question now for us is What are we afraid of?  What are you afraid of?

Are we afraid of “the authorities?”

If you are Brown, or the head of an institution receiving Federal money,

a teacher, a librarian? Maybe so. 

Most likely we fear shrinking retirement savings, or shortages of goods in the stores, or online.

How are we locking the doors in our lives these days, physically, emotionally, or spiritually ?

Some have reason to fear their neighbors.

Many are afraid to listen to the news.

When we let the Bible read us, we can see that A LOCKED DOOR 

represents whatever it is that PREVENTS US FROM LIVING more freely and more fully.

Jesus then is our own power to overcome what prevents us from living.

Jesus doesn’t tell the disciples they were wrong to lock the door; he just walks right through the door. 

I read from two gospels, yet another pair; one of them not in the Bible.

I am convinced that the “doubting Thomas” title of this story is wrong.

The writer of the gospel of Thomas, and the writer of the gospel of John, 

unknown to us, were in a dispute with each other.

John won the fight. The church went with John over Thomas.

John got in the Bible; Thomas did not.

Their argument was this: John taught in his gospel that we must “believe” or accept

some things about Jesus in order to belong to him.

We are told to believe that Jesus was divine, 

        that he said and did many things that are not attested to by other witnesses, 

                such as the writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Most of all we are told to believe that the resurrection of Jesus was a physical, objective reality.

John’s gospel says “Do not doubt but believe.” 

But we don’t have to believe these things to be Christian.

These things are not taught explicitly by the other gospels or by Paul.

This shows us that there are many ways to be Christian.

I want to protect that, because we are not all the same.

Here is what Thomas taught:

        Believing is about seeking the truth in Jesus.

        The seeking is of value because it disturbs us.

        Being disturbed will save us because it will lead us

        to discover that the rule of God and “the living Jesus” 

        are within us and indeed all around us, everywhere.

We tend to think that all the gospels are telling the same story but they are not.

We tend to think that all the stories about Jesus can be “harmonized,” but they cannot.

There are many stories about Jesus and what he said and did.

They are meant not to convince us of certain facts; 

they are meant to open our hearts and change our minds.

“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.” 

Yes, each of us, whatever we believe, has come to believe it without seeing, without proof. 

--------------

What sticks with me this week, after Easter, is that we in the United States are living in a spiritual crisis.

We either deny it, run from it, or are eaten up by it.

Our crisis is something we cannot see, but we feel it.

Things are happening beyond our control. We feel threatened.

Who we are, and what our country has been and what it is about,

are suddenly in doubt as never before.

That is our spiritual crisis.

Some of you may think that our situation is not so bad,

or maybe even that the direction we now are moving is the right one.

I do not think so.

Things are happening that grate against our core beliefs, our deepest values,

so many of us fear where we might be going,  and we don’t see yet any effective way to respond.

Each of us must find the rule of God within us. 

The prophet Micah helps by asking, “What does the Lord require of you

but to do justice and to love kindness

     and to walk humbly with your God?”

Jesus helps by tellling us, “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, 

and all the things you need will be given to you as well.”

 

A Disturbing Dream

I had a dream. I was walking through the woods in early spring , seeing a few small flowers on a few dead stalks, but I had been in these woods the day before and saw no visible living thing. I observed several dead trees.

In the dream I came upon a dead stump about 4 inches in diameter and 3 ft tall. A flower bloomed on the edge of the top of the stump. Smoke came from the other side of the blossom. Within the rising smoke wafting around the top of the stump, small flames no larger than what comes from a match came into being, retreated, and burst out again.

I was shocked, a bit frightened and didn't know what to do. Would this start a forest fire? What was causing it? 

I awoke and could not return to sleep. This had been a Jungian dream, with much symbolism and of import to my life. I had read a lot of Jung in the 70s. Somehow it was connected to another symbolic event,the vulture that fell dead from the sky into my backyard three days before. I, the secular, atheist was now thinking about omens,a foreboding of something to come that would change everything, possibly for good, but likely for ill.

Now I was thinking of Moses and the burning bush, and what symbolism was at work there and in my dream. The burning stump seemed to indicate the mysterious presence of a primordial power that called for my attention. “Listen up, Dennis, to what is going on and what you must do,” would be the voice in the flame. The fire symbolizes “spirit” in the Biblical story of Pentecost, and probably in the myths and legends of every religion. Coming to awareness of the divine within and from without, and self-awareness have often been described as a burning. It has only been 50 years since Christians began speaking of "spirituality," and about that long that psychologists ceased to describe religious experiences as mental illness.

Before the dream, as I fell asleep, I thought about how all of our political and economic problems are essentially spiritual. As a nation, we are in a spiritual crisis, and yet few of all the opinion commentators and theologians I read and hear speak of this. And what does “spiritual crisis” mean? I came of age in the 60s and came to a Christian faith, which led me to attend a seminary during the Civil Rights and Anti-War movements. I had seen a spiritual crisis in the nation’s unresolved racism and its choice to make war in Asia against “communism,” a complex symbol for undemocratic authoritarianism that threatened capitalism and our way of life. Complex because religious Westerners accused communism of being “materialistic” because it denies God and the Spirit, whereas we Westerners were deeply materialistic in our greed for goods and greater wealth. So both communism and capitalism are expressions of spiritual crises.

Following the dream I was struck that we mostly have forgotten what Trump's first term was like. The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have wiped our memories of that period. We were drowning in fear of what would happen next and anxiety that we or those we love might die from covid. 

That is our problem; we are afraid, and we have been afraid. From the beginning of Trump’s entrance into politics, he fanned flames of fear and hate. We forget the many frightening events of his first term, and the many malicious characters that surrounded him. We have forgotten the two impeachments. The Senate protected him and did not convict him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in December 2019, and again in January 2021, for incitement of insurrection. We took Trump lightly the first time, thinking that guardrails would protect us from harm. 

We were relieved to elect Biden and a Democratic Congress and Senate, but half the country was offended by the return to liberalism, the belief that we should accept all people, including those we really hate deep down, and that government should actively better the lives of everyone. 

Conservatives, those who wanted to preserve the past and move slowly toward change, were replaced by a large minority that supported Trump in wanting to tear down old systems that they perceived had harmed them and rewarded the undeserving. Liberals and even many former conservatives fear this. We are fearful now of almost everything. Even if Trump dies then we have to worry about Vance. We know only a little about him, but we know he is cruel has to do with the future, but our spiritual crisis also touches on the past. Now, we feel guilt that we did not act decisively against Trump and the ideas he represented during his first term.

This guilt is like that of the French after World War II for not having done enough or anything to save their neighbors who were being taken away by the Nazis.

Moses encountered his burning bush when he was living well in Midian after escaping from Egypt. Now he had family, and Midian was far east of Egypt, across the Sinai and the Gulf of Aquaba in what is now northwest Saudi Arabia. He was safe and had no reason to involve himself in Egypt. But the burning bush was a revelation from God that his people were slaves in Egypt and that he should go and free them.

So am I fat and safe, and old as well, not inclined to accept a new call, especially one without the detail from Yahweh of what to do and how. Actually, I am in the same position as everyone else who opposes Trump, his aides, and their program of government destruction.

But response to a spiritual crisis requires, first that we recognize and confess our fear and guilt and analyze our errors and failings. Then follows the articulation of visions and goals and the identification of new leaders who will unite us in our exodus from autocracy, mendacity, and cruelty.

Vance Doesn't Understand Jesus or Love

The scripture this week follows last week and is fitting

for all that has transpired in our national government:

Jesus was driven from his home synagogue 

for saying good things about foreigners and non-Jews,

and Paul’s famous words about love.

So first I will speak of things we need to hear

and then I will share some good news for our future.

I will not talk about politics this morning,

but one of our politicians has distinguished himself

by speaking out on the gospels and the teachings of Jesus.

This is my territory.

I have free reign to respond to Vance on issues where I have expertise.

JD Vance said, 

“You [should] love your family and then you love your neighbor 

and then you love your community 

and then you love your fellow citizens and your own country, 

and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.

“A lot of the far left has completely inverted that. 

[He says that those of us who do not agree] 

“seem to hate the citizens of their own country 

and care more about people outside their own borders.”

You know this is wrong.

Religious leaders have objected, and I join them.

They write: We lift up the parable of the good Samaritan

After Jesus tells a lawyer that you should ‘love your neighbor as yourself,’

the lawyer asks him, ‘And who is my neighbor?

“In response, Jesus tells the story of a Jewish man 

who has been beaten by robbers and is lying by the side of the road.

The man is helped not by those closest to him (a ‘priest’ and a ‘Levite’), 

but rather by a Samaritan. 

At the time, Jews and Samaritans 

would have considered one another enemies.

“So Jesus’ fundamental message is that everyone is your neighbor, 

and that it is not about helping just your family or those closest to you. 

It’s specifically about helping those who seem different, foreign, other. 

They are all our ‘neighbors.’

So when JD Vance says “The idea that we love family first,

is “the simple concept of America First,”

this is what most of us call “Christian Nationalism.” 

This is the idea that Christianity is the dominant religion in the world and

that other religions must be kept out, put down, even eliminated.

Sometimes it means that Jesus cares more about the US 

than any other country.

It is closely linked to White Supremacy and authoritarianism.

This means Whites are superior to others and we ought to have kings or 

CEO’s who are smarter, more competent, 

and more deserving than the rest of us.

All of this is closely connected to our myths of money, success, and power.

We have been bamboozled to think that successful, rich people 

are smarter and more deserving, 

and should be allowed to rule over the rest of us.

Our declaration of independence says that all people are created equal; 

The Bible says everyone is a child of God.

Each of us has some disability, and so we must help each other through life.

Unfortunately, some of us take evil paths and must be restrained 

and kept from open society.

JD Vance may have talents, but he is not to be respected 

as a teacher of religion or Jesus.

Vance is Catholic and part of a movement within Catholicism 

that seeks to overturn Vatican II reforms from the 1960's.

He disregards historic Catholic social teaching and opposes Pope Francis.

Jesus said disturbing things about our families:

Someone told Jesus, 

“Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 

Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 

For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven 

is my brother and sister and mother.” [Mt 12]

Even more troubling, Jesus said we should love our enemies, 

but that is another sermon.

We have learned the golden rule, 

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

The street version, the cynical version of this teaching, is

[“Do to others before they do to you.”]

The really terrible idea of what “golden rule” means:

[“Whoever has the gold, rules.”]

These alternative rules tell us how the world really works,

without reason and without Jesus.

Helping others doesn’t help you get ahead.

Thinking of others first just puts you behind.

These rules imply that Jesus is a wimp and his teachings are for losers.

The value here is not love, but survival, and dominance.

The way to survival and dominance is not the value of giving, but greed.

The goal here is not compassion, but competition and winning.

The values supporting competition and winning are animosity, 

even meanness, and cruelty, if they are necessary to get ahead.

The famous love chapter by Paul tells what love is not 

and then extols what love is:

Love doesn't envy. 

It doesn't boast. 

It doesn't bluster. 

It doesn't make a scene. 

It doesn't look after its own interests. 

It doesn't throw fits. 

It doesn't dwell on the negative. 

Love takes no pleasure in injustice, but is delighted by the truth.

Love upholds everything, 

trusts in everything, 

hopes for everything, 

endures everything. 

We must above all, hold on to these truths.

In the 1st letter of John, where we read that “God is love.”

I asked my theology professors why we could say “love is God,” 

They were horrified, 

but I am now convinced that what we mean when we speak of God 

is Love, social Justice, and Peace.

But Christian nationalists will say that “love” is a weak, naïve, idealistic, 

and impractical response to the current political moment.

If you can take your eyes off the current president and vice president,

and Putin and Orban for a few minutes, 

you can think again of Jesus, MLKing, Mandela,

Solzhenitsyn, Dostoevsky, Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison

and others who had larger visions

for a much greater way of life.

We are told that MLKing’s birthday and Black History Month 

will no longer be observed by the dept of defense or the dept of state.

Such observance and every mention of diversity as a positive, 

or equality or equity may be removed.

But they will return.

Because love and openness only move in one basic direction.

We have heard that 

“The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.”

We see that often a step backward is taken 

when two steps forward have been achieved.

Jesus may have been crucified, but we still remember him and his teachings.

And I think something wonderful is happening to Christians in America.

Yes, I have good news.

I see that more and more people in more and more churches

are recognizing that we have misunderstood Jesus and Christianity.

Much of the history of the church has been about power and control.

Now we see more clearly that the teachings of Jesus 

are more important than the things we were taught about Jesus.

We are finding that Jesus wasn’t about salvation 

or making us feel better when we are facing ill health or death.

Jesus was a Jew, and Christianity like Judaism 

is at root a religion of Ethics not salvation.

Jesus didn’t come just for me or you. 

Jesus didn’t come to make us feel good. 

He came to set us free. 

Living Our Own Bonhoeffer Moments: Exploring the Ethics of Assassination

This essay was prompted by the assassination of the CEO of United Health Care Insurance. 

Killing

A hot ethical issue as 2025 begins is killing, causing the death of another person. With many other viewers, I follow a popular genre on streaming TV called “true crime” revolving around murders and their investigations. “Cold cases,” long- unsolved homicides,  “serial killers,” and “parricide,” the killing of parents or siblings, are of special interest. Murder as an intentional, premeditated killing is a crime, an offense against public standards codified as law, punishable by death, life without parole, or some lesser punishment. Some jurisdictions allow capital punishment as the fitting penalty for murder; others forbid executions as cruel, inhumane, and degrading punishment, as murder committed by the state. Distinctions are drawn: was it a “cold-blooded,” unfeeling, execution-style act? Was it a “crime of passion” or opportunity? Was it motivated by love or lust, revenge or anger, hatred or greed? Had the murderer suffered a violent childhood?

Drama and literature from Shakespeare to Dostoevsky to Scott Turow and Louise Penny have given us profound thoughts and questions about murder. Modern entertainments and pop culture continue these ethical inquiries. In the film, The Unforgiven (1992), a teenager has killed a man for no reason.  Munny, the experienced gunman played by Clint Eastwood, tells him, “It's a hell of a thing, ain't it, killin' a man. You take everythin' he's got... an' everythin' he's ever gonna have.” The kid says, “Well, I gu-guess they had it... comin'.” Munny tells him “We all got it comin', Kid.” The main character in the televised series, Evil (2020-2024, season 2, episode 6), is a woman psychologist who kills a serial killer who threatens her and her children. A detective who knows her and the situation says, “What happened...was justice.... Some people deserve to die. Cops know that better than anyone.” Later she makes an emotional confession to a priest. This takes place within the story of a White cop acquitted of killing a Black woman because he believes she has a gun, but she did not. Justice does not look kindly on evil, but evil often wins. Sometimes evil acts bring justice, but killing is hard even on the killer.

Defense and War

Killing is accepted and allowed by just about everyone under certain circumstances. Self-defense or the defense of innocents is often allowed by the law or the courts.  Probably most people would  justify killing in cases of personal and national defense. War declared by a nation legalizes murder by its citizens when they serve as soldiers, and such service in the military is seen as honorable. But many wars have been fought for land, treasure, and the increase of power over others. Significantly, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914, triggered World War I because of alliances among the nations of Europe at the time. 

A decision to go to war or not has distressed many leaders. Some have chosen not to engage an enemy because of the unknown, unintended consequences of such action. Obama’s reluctance to enter the Syrian conflict is a recent example. Other leaders have declared war to use the resulting patriotism to boost political support. Several U.S. Presidents have been accused of “wagging the dog” by using invasions, missile strikes, or air strikes to divert attention away from political problems. Assassination is a feature of “hybrid warfare” today. Russia has assassinated individual citizens who have opposed the government at home and abroad; China claims assassination as a legitimate tactic, and India has been accused of assassinations in Pakistan, Canada, and the US.

Some argue that a particular war is unjust; others declare that all war is wrong and never justified. Some governments make exception for those who are against war and killing by allowing “conscientious objection.” I claimed such objection to the American war in Vietnam. On the other hand, an assassin may reason that if the state can execute its enemies and ask its citizens to kill in war, he or she is justified in using violence to achieve justice. The most famous political assassination is probably that of Julius Caesar, killed because he had become a tyrant. But his death brought about the further destruction of representative democracy in Rome, and the establishment of even worse tyrants. 

In the US the most famous historical assassination was of Abraham Lincoln. Timothy McVeigh, when arrested for bombing a government building in Oklahoma City in 1995, wore a T-shirt with a picture of Abraham Lincoln and the words “Sic Semper Tyrannis” (“thus always to tyrants”). John Wilkes Booth shouted these words after he shot President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, quoting the same words Brutus is supposed to have said after he and his friends murdered Julius Caesar. Matthew Alan Livelsberger, who exploded a truck in Las Vegas January 1, 2025, left behind writings about his view that the US was collapsing and the need to purge Washington DC of Democrats. False conspiracy theories are an increasing motivation for terror bombings and assassinations. 

The Assassin As Hero

The folk hero of the day is Luigi Mangione, the handsome, well-educated man who assassinated Brian Thompson, CEO of United Health Care, presumably for denying health care claims from a back injury. I join many thousands who reluctantly sympathize with Luigi because we view the insurance industry as unfeeling and uncaring intermediaries standing between the medical profession and the public they serve. Some have even lionized him on social media, treating him as a Robin Hood-like hero, but such assassinations are still murder and may change little or nothing. 

Horrified leaders of the insurance industry, supported by those in the legal and political systems, object that such violence solves nothing and is always wrong. They label such violence vigilantism, terrorism, and revolutionary behavior. Vigilantes enforce laws, find facts, decide guilt or innocence, sentence, and even execute those accused and found guilty entirely outside of established judicial and legal systems, without authorization by anyone but themselves. Such unregulated law and order breaks the law and disturbs the civil peace so that citizens cannot know what is the law or expect it to be fair and just. Terrorists commit violent acts in order to instill fear among the populace, who, without protection, will surrender governance to them. Revolutionaries commit violence in order to bring down an existing government, which they believe to be unjust and oppressive, in order to establish a new one, which they believe will be more fair and just than the one overthrown.

Assassination

“Assassination” is the targeted killing of a prominent, public person in government, politics, the press, or even entertainment. In 2022 a man called the police to confess that he was at the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanagh, with homicidal and suicidal thoughts. He said, “I was under the delusion that I could make the world a better place by killing him.” Because we might oppose or applaud the motivation behind any assassination, we need to ask if this motive was “a delusion.” I remember viscerally the deaths of JFK (1963), Malcolm X (1965), MLK, Jr. (1968), and Bobby Kennedy (1968), all people I admired. Others disliked them intensely. Such events are shocking at the time and raise fears about the immediate future, but these events recede in memory and are remembered with less outrage as time passes. 

Computer searches reveal that assassinations in my lifetime were more numerous and perhaps more significant than I realized previously. A first search found 130 important, world-changing assassinations in the years before my birth, 35 significant, global attacks since my birth, and at least 15 political killings worldwide thus far in 2024. Wikipedia lists 112 assassinations in the history of the United States, but lynchings are not included, perhaps because few were of prominent persons. The sheer length and breadth of these lists disturb me. Further searches produce longer lists of assassinations and attempted assassinations within the United States and by the United States. The number of homicides (approximately 25,000 homicides in 2022) that could be classified as assassinations is not known. Many of the approximately 12,000 hate crimes in 2023 possibly were assassinations or attempted assassinations. We might think assassinations are rare, but they are a fact of life in our nation and in the world.

Assassins desire not only the end of the target’s life, but great change resulting from their removal from the world stage. While the search for the truth behind the JFK assassination is continually in the news, the attempted assassination of Adolf Hitler in 1944 is of greatest concern to me and to many others today. Actually, there were at least 42 plots to kill Hitler by members of the military and civilian resistance, in efforts to stop the war, the monstrous killing of millions in concentration camps, and the destruction of Germany. Many were and are convinced that the death of Hitler would have brought about an earlier end to the war, but this cannot be known. Hitler survived every plot including the famous “Valkyrie” plot. Nearly 5,000 were executed by the Nazis in retaliation.

When Is Assassination the Solution?

The question for all social justice activists of the left and the right through the centuries has been: when if ever is it legitimate, acceptable, or even needful to assassinate a public figure, official, or national leader? We may see the killing of George Tiller, a legal abortionist, or Martin Luther King, Jr., a civil rights and anti-war leader, as evil, but their assassins did not. Many opposed to assassination believe that such violence is never the answer to political disputes or issues of justice. They believe that all caring and careful people should work for changes in systems, but let political and judicial processes work themselves out. In this moral dilemma, pesky unknown, unintended consequences are reasons to stand down, while the death of innocents by the targeted person is reason to move forward. Still, assassination is murder; an assassin must accept responsibility for the act of murder, whether it is justified or not.

Religious belief and philosophical principles are key to ethical decision-making. I opposed the war in Vietnam because of a commitment to the teachings of Jesus. I concluded that there were causes worth dying for, but few if any worth killing for. I was alarmed that I was expected to kill on command someone I did not know for dubious reasons. Refusing to comply with a government-issued draft order was, for many young men like myself, a major means of resistance to that war, although some told me that by refusing to go, I was sending someone else, perhaps to die.

The Common “Bonhoeffer Moment”

Some Christians and others today and in the past have debated whether a particular US President is a tyrant and when assassination might be appropriate to stop him. The assassinations of Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy were political in motivation, but each killing was motivated by an element of religious fervor or strong philosophical belief. The question for some Christians today is when and how can we know that we are in a “Bonhoeffer moment,” commonly understood as a time of crisis calling for violent action to stop or prevent evil. They speak of that moment as the turning point when someone decides it is better to commit evil than to allow greater evil.

For Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German Lutheran theologian, that moment began to form when he publicly denounced Hitler the day Hitler was appointed Chancellor in January 1933. With that denunciation he became a central figure in the “Young Reformation Movement” which later that year became the “Confessing Church,” opposed to cooperation with the Nazis. In April he delivered a speech titled The Church and the Jewish Question, in which he challenged the new prohibition on the baptism of Jews. There he wrote that the church could respond in three ways: challenge the state regarding the legality of their demands, help those hurt by state actions, and third to act directly by “putting a spoke in the wheel” of the system which was running over people.

He rebelled by founding an underground seminary in faraway Finkenwalde, but it was closed by the Nazis in August 1937, endangering his colleagues and students. Bonhoeffer’s decisive moment may be said to have arrived in February1938 when his brother-in-law introduced him to a group planning the assassination of  Hitler. Or in 1939, when he sailed to the US to give lectures but returned a month later on the last ship to Germany, because, he said, “I will have no right to participate in the re-establishment of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share this time of trial with my people.” Or it may have been in 1940 when he won appointment to the Abwehr, military intelligence, where he was expected to spy on his church friends in and outside Germany, but instead used his position to smuggle Jews to Switzerland. In April 1943 he was arrested, and while writing his book, Ethics, he lied to his captors because he had determined that it was not wrong to misdirect those who do evil.

Bonhoeffer’s life was complex with many contradictions. Bonhoeffer may have joined the Abwehr partly to avoid conscription, as I was accused of claiming conscientious objection to avoid the draft. In his 1933 speech on The Church and the Jewish Question, his anger may have been rooted in his continuing belief that Jews should convert to Christianity, which the Nazis prevented by prohibiting their baptism. Bonhoeffer was not reared in the church; he was the only one in his family to have interest in the church or theology; his family was intellectual, elitist and secular. He was not ordained until his return from the US in 1931, and his only work in churches was brief, as a university student chaplain and as a teacher of a confirmation class in a parish in Berlin. His book, Life Together, shows that he seems to have thought of his small group studies and discussions, and later his seminary, as his church. 

Bonhoeffer was a committed Christian pacifist who joined a group plotting to kill Hitler. I infer the following ethical principles and questions from his writings and imagine he may have made his decision to participate in or support the assassination plot accordingly:

1. Does the political leader demand publicly that his enemies be killed? 

2. Does he imprison, harm, or torture his enemies?

3. Does he order the murder of his enemies?

4. Do the actions of the leader directly threaten the existence of ethnic groups or other states?

5. Do his actions directly threaten the future of civilization itself?

From 1933 onward, Bonhoeffer was increasingly able to answer “yes” to these questions.

The True Bonhoeffer Moment

I now see that the true “Bonhoeffer moment” is not the one that moves us to stand against evil by committing evil. Others who were executed for participating in the same or similar plots are not given the attention we give to Bonhoeffer. The difference must be that he was a more prominent Christian and writer, whose intellectual struggle became better known than others. And he stood out because his conclusions were radical and ahead of the time. 

        This leads me to think that Bonhoeffer’s real moment of truth was when he most fully understood that the old religion, which allowed itself to be enlisted in the service of evil, was over and past, when he came to believe that all religion must involve “responsible action,” and that what remains of Christianity is“religionless.” His earlier book, The Cost of Discipleship, had presented Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), as a call to an active ethic of choice and decision. From his Letters and Papers from Prison we learn that he moved from thinking of Christian faith as belief in doctrines to an understanding that faith is one’s response in situations demanding action, even when we cannot know for sure that our action is right. 

Studying science, he had learned that the world had “come of age,” so that God cannot be the stand-in for what we do not yet know (“the God of the gaps”). The church could no longer be a mediating authority between us and God, and God could no longer be seen as separate from the world but fully in the world, in us. Bonhoeffer’s truth was that we must live in this world as it is, and take responsibility for the world and ourselves by responding as best we can to each challenge put before us. 

Bonhoeffer seems to have given up on the institutional church, its traditions, and some of its teachings, but he did not give up his basic, pietistic belief in the crucified Jesus and the risen Christ. He did not give up his Lutheran “theology of the cross” in contrast to a God of glory. We may not be Lutherans or pietists, but the symbol of the crucifixion of an innocent retains its power. Bonhoeffer’s beliefs changed and we are reminded of Samuel Johnson’s famous quote, "When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." Christ for Bonhoeffer became more clearly the one who suffers, perhaps not “for us,” not on our behalf as the Son of God, but in the ways we all suffer, especially like those who suffer unjustly under oppression. 

He famously said, "Before God, and with God, we live without God," which I take to mean that new language is needed to express Christian faith and ethics, and what we mean when we name God or speak of divinity or Providence. One of Bonhoeffer’s attempts at this was to call Christ “the man for others” by his values and personal example and integrity, not by myth or divine interference.  Christ had become for Bonhoeffer the historical Jesus, and the symbol both for the humanity of God and the possibility of the experience of the divine in human life. 

Our pivotal moments are when we think and decide for ourselves, and refuse to leave this work for someone else or to chance. I have moments of despair and anger when I want to see persons in power who support or commit great injustices removed by any means. But Jesus suggested that my hatred makes me guilty of killing without having actually killed anyone (Mt 5:21-22). I know that I am capable of killing, which proves the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity (without the notion of original sin), but I doubt that I could actually kill anyone, partly because I would not want anyone to kill me (yet another Jesus reference). I admit also that I am a coward and hypocrite when I approve and celebrate someone else doing evil that I will not do myself. 

If a nation’s leader starts killing people, does assassination become acceptable? If so such an assassination would benefit from the wisdom of a group in order to avoid the act being by a mentally unstable lone wolf. A member of such a group might still claim to be a pacifist, because the act is done to save others. This was Bonhoeffer’s situation, not unlike Caesar’s attackers. And so the question remains: if all five of Bonhoeffer’s questions can be answered in the affirmative, then is the one who does not kill him less guilty than the one who does? And is assassination an ethical imperative in that situation? 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many of us were introduced to Bonhoeffer in Honest to God by John A.T. Robinson (1963), then reading The Cost of Discipleship, Letters and Papers from Prison, and Ethics by Bonhoeffer. I have immersed myself in Bonhoeffer again the past four years. He has been called the most popular religious person today. Numerous books, films, websites, classes, and video discussions about him may be found online. ChatGPT tells me that “an exact count of books written about Bonhoeffer is challenging due to the extensive literature.” The complete and annotated Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works are now available from the International Bonhoeffer Society and its English Language Section.

My Approach to Prayer –

Dennis Maher – November 4, 2024

How can we "pray" when we do not believe in a literal God "above." God is a symbol for our very being, for life itself, for all the cosmic mysteries (that which we do not yet understand). Earlier writings of Jack Caputo beginning in 2004 changed the ways in which I have led prayer in worship. I draw on my interest in Carl Jung and his “depth psychology” during the 1980's. And Pope Francis said a few years back that he welcomed the “desires” of atheists as prayers. So – 

In prayer I think of myself as looking inward to my deepest and most fundamental self (which I understand as “soul”), and I speak from there, which is where words are found that are most filled with meaning. This is the place from which poetry arises. It is the place to which we retreat in times of tragic loss and before tremendous and sudden change in our lives.

It is from this deep place that we may speak our deepest thoughts, and it is also the deep self to whom we will address those thoughts. We are speaking from and to ourselves. In prayer we are speaking from our depths to our depths. We can surprise ourselves with our expression of thought; we think new thoughts by finding words to express them. Our new thoughts are built on previous thoughts and the input of others on our lives. I think of “spirit” as what transpires between us, an exchange of souls, so to speak.

We need to hear what comes from our own profundity. It is what we do with all of our conscious thought all day long, every day. We talk to ourselves and we answer ourselves. We challenge ourselves, direct ourselves, correct ourselves. There is no one else inside ourselves; there are only real, other persons outside of ourselves. Even at night in our dreams, as we process the day’s activities, we are speaking from depth to depth, from the profound to the profound.

We compose poetry to ourselves. Composing poetry is a high level of human thought because it is from the depths of our souls, our selves. Such is prayer. So when we pray whom do we address? I speak to myself and to the cosmos, to the source of highest, human values. From some Sunday prayers of the past two years, I have introduced others to this mode of prayer:

1. God, we call you, who in your greatness is utterly and thoroughly awesome, 

who is in love and mercy gracious beyond our deserving and expectation, 

and who in being and truth is beyond our words to tell.

You are for us the Great and Gracious Lover of the world, 

who has made yourself a friend to us in Jesus as the Christ,

and given us your Spirit to stir us up.

Or I might begin with acknowledging what brings us together:

        2. Our prayers begin with our joys and concerns in our lives in this world.

            Our prayers dive deep into our inmost selves and from there

        our deepest thoughts speak to our deepest selves.

            This is the place where we receive love and from where love rises within us.

            Here we agonize for our loved ones, our friends, the sick and dying, 

        the hungry and the homeless, those who grieve, and those who struggle

    with addictions and mental and emotional distress, 

and those who face injustice, and those who live in war.

Or I might address our values directly and ask questions:

        3. We address the source of all love and justice with questions:

            Why can’t we see these values 

        and make them real in our behaviors and laws?

            Why did violence enter our lives when we did not seek it?

            Why weren’t we taught about the non-violence at the heart of the gospel?

            How can the churches be more the source of good news?

            Why is the world and its troubles and conflicts too much with us?

            We know that we are the enemy that always opposes us, 

        and we are the solution to the problems ever before us.

            We are the good news for the world, 

        if we choose to take up the cause of love and justice, and kindness and mercy.

And I fall back on the salad form of prayer (“Let us”) and the “May we” locution. Both are passive and seem cowardly to me, but they are hard to escape:

        4. Let us concentrate on our deepest selves.

            Let us think on our relationships with others.

            Are we in a good place as a self? As a human?

            Are we in a good place with those around us? 

    With those we encounter each day?

            Is there love and happiness in my heart?

            Or does my heart ache with loneliness, fear, anxiety, grief and sadness?

            Those closest to us also struggle with their hearts

        and when their troubles come into the light they become ours; 

    so we must find good ways to respond to them.

            Our deep desires are for those who present us with their trials and needs.

            We want a better life for all who come into our thoughts from the larger world,

            in Gaza and Israel, in Ukraine and Russia, in Africa and many other places.

            We age in body and mind. Let us not age in spirit and love,

            but let us pray for our healing and the healing of the world

          with the spirit and words of Jesus, who taught us to pray, saying....

        5. We know that there are family and friends who were traumatized by some great harm and hurt.

            May we be gentle with them and kind to them.

            May we find places in our thoughts and hearts and actions

            for people we encounter in the world. 

            May we be empowered to work for the justice and peace 

            behind and under which is everything holy to all peoples.

            May we listen to Jesus, and follow his teachings, and so we pray as he taught....