Luke 1:26-35; James 5:7,8

Thank you for inviting Alice and me to share in the celebration of the 40th anniversary of St. Luke. We feel at home, not only because of the many lasting friendships nurtured during our 35 years with you but also because you continue to view yourselves as a “Theologically Progressive Community Committed to Worshipping, Learning, Serving and Caring”.

The sermon title may seem to be a bit tricky but it is actually quite descriptive of an important difference in the world of 2004 when compared with the world of two thousand years ago. The general world view at the time of Jesus’ birth was that the world was controlled by spirits. God and the angels represented the good spirits who strived to improve the world. Satan and the demons were the evil spirits who sought to win the battle with good and make the world worse. Reason was based on that understanding of the world and hope for the world was based on faith that God and good would win. A primary goal of religion was to appease and/or manipulate the spirits with the hope that desired results would occur. You may recall, for example, stories of Jesus casting our demons from persons who, by the standards of today, would be considered physically or mentally ill. In the world of today the situation is reversed. Most of us do not believe that the world is controlled by spirits. We have learned, however, that knowledge is power and therefore invest much time and treasure in learning as much as possible about this wonderful world of Gods’ creation and how God works in it. Instead of “casting out demons” we rely on medical science to show us how cures can result from proper treatment. If the world view of two thousand years ago prevailed today we would no doubt have many more “healing chapels” and no hospitals or physicians.

In the time of Jesus, reason, i.e. the power of the mind was based how one could appease/manipulate the spirits. Reason therefore had its basis on a “faith” in that which we now know is not true. Today the basis of faith is found in what we have come to “know” or believe to be true, through the compounding of knowledge across the centuries. It is not a matter of doubting the existence of God. It is a matter of coming to understand better how God works in us and in our world. Most medical treatment today is based on facilitating the healing powers which God has placed within us as part of our being human. Medical research and the acquisition of increasing medical knowledge is based on this search.

I use medicine only as an example. The same basis for growing knowledge applies in all areas of interest and concern to human life. Reason is thus basic to the nurturing of faith which brings forth hope. Our faith is not only in God and the goodness we believe God represents but in the good things that come to us from God through the utilization of the human mind. In both cases, then and now, hope was a spin-off result from a belief in God. Win favor of the good spirits in the old days and you had a faith basis for hope. In the contemporary world if we train and use our minds in the best way possible and live life increasingly to the fullest of our potential, faith in God and in the gifts God has given us as part of our being human, provides a valid basis for hope.

The scripture which comes to us from Luke and James carries a message that is important to us in related beliefs of the past and present. Luke spoke of a hope in Jesus for the immediate future as the promises Messiah. James spoke of a hope that would erase the disappointment that came with the death of Jesus and consequent “Messiah hope”. The Advent and Christmas season is an appropriate time for considering this message.

The Old Testament Jews developed a belief that they were the chosen people of God. This belief came to be very important to their self esteem and also fundamental to their survival in history. The history of the Jews is one of conflict between what they believed about themselves and the reality of their position in the world. As a nation they peaked during the reign of King David. This is the reason they came to think of David as the greatest King they ever had. Following that “peak”, they experienced bondage by the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks, and finally at the time of Jesus, the Romans. This kind of history does not give harmonious support to the idea of being “God’s chosen people”!

The Jews also came to believe that their hope could justifiably be based in a belief that God would send someone to deliver them from their oppression. During the times when they were occupied by a variety of enemies, they “researched” themselves in terms of attitude and obedience to the laws which they believed were given to them by God and were thus basic to their relationship with God. The leadership they expected from God would deliver them from national oppression and would also provide them with spiritual guidance and renewal. The ultimate leader they came to expect was identified as “Messiah”. It was this “Messiah” whom many Jews hoped would be realized in the mature Jesus. But, alas, Jesus was killed. Those who followed him as disciples were challenged to rationalize his death. The also continued to believe that God would send someone to fulfill their hope in a “Messiah”. There was thus developed a belief among early Christians, both Jews who “believed” and Gentiles, that Jesus would come a second time. The belief in a “Second Coming” continues to be part of the fundamentalist Christian belief system today.

An intellectual and attitudinal adjustment is now mandatory if Christian theology is to live on with a positive impact on our society and in our world.

Contemporary response in U.S. societal theology has moved toward a no compromise “like it used to be” approach generally known as “the ole time religion”. The predominant “Jesus Theology” has its roots deep in the history of the Christian Church. It fuels the fundamentalism which is growing by leaps and bounds in community churches typically not identified as denominational. “Ole Time” theology is also making a strong comeback in main line churches including The United Methodist Church. Serious thought is now being given by many in the United Methodist Church concerning the possibility of a church split between the “ole timers” and the progressives. In the October 25, 2004 issue of U.S. News & World Report is an article on American Judaism in which it is reported that “Many American Jews are Returning to (traditional) religious practice with intensity”. The same can be said of Christians, especially to the “ole time religion”.

Little is being aggressively offered by the Church to replace a primitive sacrificial theology. There is great need for a theology that meets human need in the contemporary world. There is need for a theology that is legitimate, harmonious with current understanding of the world/universe in which we live, and that unifies rather than divides.

Now I must ask you! Is a belief in the sacrificial requirement of God for fellowship with human beings consistent which a mature and meaningful understanding of how God works in our contemporary world? Does the requirement for the killing of one human being to meet the punishment needs for sins committed by everyone else in the world, make any sense? Isn’t this really a belief that should be appreciated as appropriate for the distant past but which has no reasonable place in contemporary religious thought? A belief that “Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins” has traditionally been at the heart of Christian theology. It is time to place this the requirement for this belief in the archives and move on to belief in God which is more harmonious with the “Father” and “Love” ideas which Jesus is reported to have shared with those to would listen to him.

Why are people returning to the “unbelievable” and unharmonious beliefs that made sense in an ancient world but not today? Perhaps part of the reason is because the church has used the threat of eternal hell and an emphasis on the virtue of maintaining a traditional belief system as a means of control and has therefore offered nothing to replace outdated beliefs. (Do you see a flash back here to the need to appease/manipulate the gods.) In other words, insisting on ancient but outdated beliefs has provided the church with power over the human mind which has thwarted the placing of anything reasonable “on the table”.

In addition to the fact that there is little else “on the table”, there are other reasons why people are returning to the old theology.

FIRST is the need for an inner personal peace in a world that is saturated with anything but peace. Experience has shown that if one is made to feel very guilty, legitimately or otherwise, and then have that sense of guilt removed by embracing a belief that someone else took the rap for that persons sinfulness, there is created a definite sense of relief and inner peace. (This explains the important place of “guilt” in much religion.) The result is an emotional “kick” not unlike that which can be drug induced. We are a generation which likes to feel good—now.

SECOND, is the fact that religion is either typically slow or unwilling to change. Its’ symbols of communication and theological teaching must adjust in order to accommodate contemporary knowledge and beliefs about the world in which we live. Many traditional symbols need to be reinterpreted. Others need to be retired.

THIRD, it is now acceptable, perhaps even prestigious, to be labeled a “born again Christian.” The uniting of “right wing” religion with “right wing” politics has provided an environment of acceptance in the U.S. for the “born again” idea. The “born again” concept is more contingent upon professed religious experience and acceptance of certain beliefs than it is on behavior.

In addition to what is happening within religion there is a growing movement in secular responses to traditional Christian holidays, such as Christmas, to change symbolism to a non-religious implication. Both schools and businesses are increasingly caught up in this movement. Thanksgiving has become “Turkey Day”. Christmas is becoming Holiday. We quarrel about whether or not prayers can be said in schools and are uneasy about any teaching of religion in our educational system below the college level. This trend comes from fear of insulting persons of faiths other than traditional Christianity. There is also the danger that zealous teachers might attempt to win converts. Perhaps there is also some embarrassment because so much of what is often thought of in reference to a “Christian Nation” is more a matter of words than in behavior. In other words, there is something contradictory (hypocritical) about the prevailing religious climate and the general moral tone observed in U.S. society.

As a religious community, i.e. the church in general, has not yet progressed to a point where, with pride in our approach to religion we offer a theology which provides the values of the “ole time religion” while at the same time insisting on intellectual integrity. A way has not yet been provided to give equal consideration to persons expressing their faith in symbols different from what has provided meaning for traditional Christians. In a world that is now spoken of as a “global village” because of the close proximity in relation to communication and transportation , there is insufficient unity to convey with clarity the message of the Advent/Christmas season, “faith”, “hope”, “peace”, and expectation for “salvation”. (There is great need for us to save ourselves FROM ourselves.)

A Christmas card recently came to our house in which the sender indicated a growing belief for the need of developing a universal religion for the world. I agree that this would be ideal. Given the great differences represented in cultures and religions perhaps a “bridge” emphasizing certain characteristics that should be part of any religion that is healthy for all human beings, individually and collectively, would be a good point of beginning. The embracing of this “bridge” might well evolve into a unified religion for the world a some point in the future.

Three important points deserve emphasis in the interest of healthy religions that can meet the needs of the world. FIRST all religion that is interested in relevancy must forsake the idea of a God demanding human sacrifice as a basic requirement. That may have been o.k. for primitive minds but in no way should it be acceptable to civilized and educated persons in the year of 2004. It served the young church well, as it struggled for existence in meeting competition from other religions during its infancy and early years, but is unnecessary and misleading “baggage” today. Stepping away from a belief in the need for “sacrifice” is difficult because of social/church pressure and the element of fear for not “believing”. Such pressure has become part of the Christian heritage. Perhaps for those whose faith depends on it, it is not as important to give up a belief in the sacrificial Jesus as it is to behave in action and attitude, as though such a belief is no longer mandatory. The idea that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God given as a sacrifice for the sins of the world makes Christianity a very exclusive religion. The world, if peace and cooperation within the human family is a reasonable expectation, is begging for religions that meet human needs but which are not mutually exclusive. In most other ways there is plenty of room for variety within the human family. This can also be true with religion. The idea of Jesus as a required human sacrifice established Christianity as “the only way”. This idea of Christianity as the only “right way” creates many more problems than it solves and should therefore be relegated to the past.

SECOND, a major emphasis should be placed on a standard by which the health and authenticity of any religion can be determined. Every religion that is healthy and makes a worthy contribution to the human family must emphasize “REVERENCE” for our Source, “RESPECT” and stewardship for the creation which nurtures and sustains life, “LOVE” as a goal for which all human beings strive in their relationships with one another, and “PERSONAL RESPONSIBIL.ITY” for human behavior, individually and as a human family. Religion should teach that the human family is always in the process of creating its own future. The ancient Jews relied on someone “coming” who would lead them into a brighter future. This is the essence of the so-called prophecies concerning the birth of Jesus and belief in a Second Coming. The standard of personal responsibility and the idea that human beings building their own future should be taught clearly and without timidity!

THIRD, we must realize that the days are gone when our “faith” must be based on the idea of a world controlled by spirits. Such a belief was consistent with the world-view two thousand years ago but it is not intellectually acceptable today. The power of reason, i.e. mental utilization, should not be limited by superstition in the name of religion. Instead, the power of human mental capacity should be excited, augmented and appreciated through a belief that it is a gift from God to be used in harmony with God. It is through its best utilization that human beings nurture and increase the effectiveness of their potential partnership with God in whatever it is that God is about.

A basic question begs for an answer by the Christian Church, and thus by each of us. Should contemporary religious reasoning be limited and controlled by a belief system dependent on a world view that made sense thousands of years ago, but on which the world no longer depends for its function? In other words, should the power of reason be limited to a faith partially based on fallacy accepted as truth two thousand years ago, or should faith be based on what we have come to learn about the wonderful creativity and creation of God across the centuries. When we are in a religious environment with our peers we are likely to answer this question “yes, follow the old way.” Deep within the heart of many within and outside the church, the answer is a reasonable and sincere “no”. Healthy religion deserves the best and most accurate thinking available to us at any point in history! We learn more about God as we learn more about how God works! We are in a better position to be accurate now than were the disciples two thousand years ago.

Many values embraced and promoted by early Christianity added meaning and purpose to human life. It is because of this that the Christian Church has survived albeit with evident weaknesses throughout the centuries. There is need for a belief system that continues to provide values which respond to human need, as individuals and as a human family, but not necessarily with the same information which was embraced by our forefather/mothers centuries ago. The ancient view of the world is now outdated. We are therefore called on to develop a basis for faith which provides the values but which is honest in relation to what we have come to learn about ourselves and our world in the 21st century.

An examination of certain assumptions, which though not universal, are clearly embraced by many, and may be helpful.

The FIRST assumption is that all human beings have a common Source. This Source is typically spoken of as God.

The SECOND assumption is that any religion which makes a healthy impact on human life must have incorporated within its belief system, a moral and ethical code which encourages (requires) its adherents to live with consideration for one another. In Judaism this code was the Ten Commandments with hundreds of interpretations. In Christianity it is incorporated in what Jesus called the two greatest commandments. Jesus indicated that these two sum up every requirement of the law, “Love God with all our being and love our neighbor as we love ourselves.”

The THIRD assumption is that inherent in being human is a desire to know more about our Source and relate to that Source in a way that diminishes fear and encourages hope. In other words each of us is in need of a sense of security and in important ways we look to a religious belief system for that security. A recent publication of U.S. & World Report examines the universal and historical human need for some kind of religion.

The FOURTH assumption is that the geographical vastness of the earth has historically caused human beings living in different locations to nurture their spiritual needs through symbolism of communication created for that specific society or nationality, in a manner not unlike the development of languages . Growing understanding of these varieties will be beneficial to the human family.

The FIFTH assumption is that in recent history the world has become relationally small through advances in means of communication, transportation, and economics. For purposes of better understanding need for change and mutual interdependence, it is often spoken of as a “global village”.

The SIXTH assumption is that all religions are in need of growth and adaptation in order to accommodate human needs in a fast changing contemporary world. In other words, there is need for a process of evolvement in religion similar to what occurs in other areas important to human beings.

The SEVENTH assumption is that religious symbolism is for the benefit of human beings, not God. God is more interested in the meaning of the symbol than in the symbol itself.

The EIGHTH assumption is that the love of God for human beings is not dependent on personality, social or economic standing, race, or nationality. The analogy of God as parent is a good and important analogy. God’s love is universal and impartial.

The NINTH assumption is that the health of every religion can be determined by the degree to which it promotes the importance of Reverence (for a common Source), Respect (for resources which create and nurture life), Love ( as a goal for the expression of all interpersonal relationships), and Personal Responsibility (for human behavior, individually and collectively). This ninth assumption was mentioned earlier in this sermon and is repeated here because of its importance.

The embracing of these assumptions makes several things clear. Tolerance and understanding among all people on the earth needs to be promoted through religions, parenting, governments, and educational institutions. It is o.k. (good) to understand God in a way different from our religious tradition hundreds or thousands of years ago. Much is learned about God by learning how God works. Science thus becomes a means of religious discovery. The compounding of knowledge across the centuries has provided increasing insight into how God works, and thus the nature of God. The combination of reverence and growing knowledge teaches us that God has empowered human beings to be partners with God in creativity and many wonderful values are associated with that capability. This view of God and human relationships with God is considerably different from traditional views of servant and “sinners in the hands of an angry God.” Careful behavioral response to what we learn becomes a means of expressing our partnership with God. We have learned that the world is not controlled by spirits, good and/or evil, but that the decisions and behavior of human beings makes the world what it is and what it will become.

Values emphasized during Advent and Christmas are at the heart of what it means to be fully human. A functional emphasis on these values can bring us to a point where, when the time comes for our life to end as we now know it, our trust in our Source can be such that we move into the future with inner peace and thanksgiving for the privilege of life as we have known it. Trusting God fully eliminates the need for detailed knowledge about the unknown future.