| |
|
|
| |
||
|
||
| |
Prayer: Dear God, we gather as your people
seeking to know your will for our lives and to experience your presence
among us. And so as we open your word and listen for your voice, come
to us in such a way that in your light may we see light, in your truth
find freedom and in your will discover peace, through Jesus Christ our
Lord. Amen. |
|
In 1980 we were young and bulletproof, full of optimism, and most of us thought Dan Rutt was a bit odd. |
When I was a freshman in college registration for the draft was reinstated. As I remember it, males my age had to go to their local post office and be registered. Since there was no war looming on the horizon and no actual draft scheduled to take place, it seemed like a mere formality to me---an easy act of patriotism. But it was not the same for Daniel Rutt, a fellow student I met my freshman year. He was perhaps the first vegetarian I'd ever met. He said he was a vegetarian because he didn't believe in killing animals. When Dan announced publicly that he would not register for the draft because he didn't believe in killing people either, something of a firestorm broke out, at least locally and in the newspaper. And in the small town of Holland, Michigan, in Ottawa County, which was the only county in Michigan to vote for Hoover during the depression, his announcement was not welcomed or cheered. I have to admit that at the time, I didn't understand him and couldn't imagine why he felt so passionately about the military and war in general. I mean, as college students we all came of age after Vietnam, and if we'd considered waging war at all it was with our parents over the use of the car and the volume of our stereos---war was not something most of us anyway, could imagine as requiring us to carry a gun and shed blood---our own and the blood of others. In 1980 we were young and bulletproof, full of optimism, and most of us thought Dan Rutt was a bit odd. I remember arguing with him in the cafeteria saying things like, "You
don't have the right to knowingly break the law." And his response
was always something like, "I not only have the right I have the
responsibility to break a law I don't believe in." I just didn't
know what to do with that. |
|
What, do you suppose, gets into some people---possesses them almost to do such things? |
Around that same time there was a local woman who also had a knack for making headlines. She was an upper-middle-class suburban housewife and mother, a member of the Country Club, who kept getting arrested for chaining herself to the fence of a nuclear power plant south of town in order to protest its presence and express her objection to all things nuclear. She was advocating for a nuclear freeze, which was fair enough, but then write a letter to the editor. Put a bumper sticker on your car or send a check to Washington. I mean, when you could be going to lunch and playing bridge, you don't just go and chain yourself to a fence. You don't announce publicly that you're going to break the law by refusing to register for the draft, do you? What, do you suppose, gets into some people---possesses them almost to do such things? Maybe there are some rules that are meant to be broken? In fact, maybe
there are some rules that are crying out to be broken? And maybe any good
society---any society worth living in is worth living in because throughout
its history it has had its share of rule breakers? It has given birth
to certain people who displayed great courage and conviction in standing
up to institutions and regimes, sometimes sparking entire movements but
getting our attention nonetheless, reminding us of loftier goals and more
noble pursuits, and in the process, helping to make some of the rough
places in society smooth, like a plain. |
|
Then one of the other officers asked her, "Why didn't you get up?" to which she replied, "I didn't think I should have to." |
I think of a quiet seamstress working in the back room of a Montgomery, Alabama department store, mumbling "yes ma'am" and "no ma'am" through a mouth full of pins, as all day long she raised and lowered the hems of white women's dresses. It was a little after 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 1955, and the city streets and store's halls were decked out for Christmas. There was a large banner hanging over the store declaring, "Peace on Earth, Goodwill to Men." When Rosa Parks left work and boarded a bus for the ride home, she sat in a seat reserved for white passengers, and a revolution that had been simmering came to a boil. I didn't know this but the way it worked was that the first four rows on all buses were reserved only for white passengers and could never be occupied by black passengers. The fifth row, however, could be used by black passengers only if there were no whites sitting there. If even one white passenger wanted to sit in row five, the blacks who had been there first, would all have to move to the back of the bus where they would most likely be forced to stand. When Rosa Parks boarded that bus there was one empty seat in the fifth row and she took it. At the next stop some passengers got on the bus, including a white man who demanded to sit in row five. He stood there waiting for all four black passengers to vacate the row, which they weren't quick to do. The driver, seeing this in his rearview mirror, turned around and said, "Y'all better make it light on yourselves and let me have those seats." The two black women and the man next to Rosa got up and moved to the back of the bus, but she continued to occupy her seat while the white man, who now had three empty seats to choose from, stood there waiting for her to move. As the tension grew the driver approached Rosa Parks and asked her if she was going to move. She replied, "No." The driver informed her that if she didn't move he'd call the police. She calmly replied, "Go ahead and call them." When the police arrived they asked her if she had understood the driver's request. She answered, "Yes." Then one of the other officers asked her, "Why didn't you get up?" to which she replied, "I didn't think I should have to."
|
|
You see, maybe that rabbi felt like you do, that society is going to hell and that his religion is under attack, and that the things he cherishes and holds dear are being violated and trampled upon. |
One sabbath day, Jesus was teaching in the synagogue and a woman, bent over with a crippling spirit that had afflicted her for eighteen years, appeared on the scene. We're not sure why she was there but presumably it was to worship and not necessarily to beg for healing since she knew what day it was. But Jesus spotted her, immediately had compassion on her and healed her. The woman stood upright and began praising God. The rabbi---the religious leader responsible for the decent and orderly transacting of religious business was furious. "There are six days on which to work---come on one of those days to be healed," he cries out in frustration. It's tempting here, I think, to pile on and add to Jesus' admonishment of him, pointing out not only his hypocrisy but all of the other hypocrisies we can think of---and there are many. But I'm not sure we should be so hard on him, nor am I so sure we should let ourselves off the hook that easily. I mean, can't you understand his logic and his reasoning? Can't you hear the frustration in his voice? It's the law and you just don't have the right to knowingly break the law! Where will it all end if there's no law and order? You see, maybe that rabbi felt like you do, that society is going to hell and that his religion is under attack, and that the things he cherishes and holds dear are being violated and trampled upon. It's the law, and if you allow even healing work to take place on
the sabbath, then the sacred traditions are neither sacred nor traditional
anymore? |
|
The question, of course, and it's still relevant, is whether or not the tradition was ever sacred? |
The question, of course, and it's still relevant,
is whether or not the tradition was ever sacred? When religion is more
interested in obeying the rules than it is in liberating the oppressed,
it needs to be challenged. When those in power are concerned more with
protecting their power and increasing it, rather than using it to further
the common good, that power must be challenged. Certainly as Protestants,
whose religious practice was formed by questioning the established rules,
we should appreciate that. "Ms Parks, why won't you get out of that seat? "Lady, why have you chained yourself to that fence again?" Jesus knowingly broke the rules and healed on the sabbath and he hardly
needed a rabbi to point out to the crowd how revolutionary his actions
were. |
|
And so in the spirit of rule breaking, I'm going to break one of my own self-imposed rules this morning. |
And so in the spirit of rule breaking, I'm going to break one of my own self-imposed rules this morning. I have never before declared from any pulpit how I intend to vote in an upcoming election, but this morning I am going to tell you, at least in part. I know that not everyone will agree with me. I do not pretend to be speaking on your behalf and I am certainly not presumptuous enough to assume that my opinion represents even the majority opinion here at Broad Street Church. I also do not respect any less those who do not share my view. But I'm breaking my own rule and sharing my opinion with you because I feel strongly about this issue, I feel convicted to speak out---and because Jesus healed on the sabbath. So for whatever it's worth, I will vote against Issue 1 this fall---the proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage in Ohio as, "Only a union between one man and one woman," and that would not recognize in any way, including legally, other relationships that fall outside of that narrow sphere. I am not against the institution of marriage, but I am against Issue 1 because it's not the number one issue facing the State of Ohio, but more importantly, because I think it's mean spirited and dishonest in that it is not intended to "protect" the institution of marriage at all, but to create a wedge in society by discriminating against a large segment of our citizens, including some who faithfully occupy these pews. Historically, the constitutions of both the United States and individual
states have been amended in order to grant rights to those who have been
denied them, and not to take away rights or to blatantly punish fellow
citizens. The proposed wording of this constitutional amendment is dangerously
ambiguous and leads me to the conclusion that it's not the institution
of marriage that needs protecting it's the constitution itself. |
|
While it's not always acknowledged and certainly not always exemplified, sometimes patriotism and protest go hand in hand. |
As a pastor, I'm afraid that such a change in our constitution would require a segment of society, already shouldering unnecessary guilt and shame to be burdened with carrying even more. And I can't help thinking about that in relationship to the woman who came to the synagogue and received healing from Jesus despite the fact that it was the "wrong" day of the week on which to be healed. Jesus saw a need and he responded in compassion. He didn't wait for her to ask, he didn't require her to beg, and it didn't matter what day of the week it was. His love for humanity and his compassion toward those who suffer overruled the rules and required a response from him. While it's not always acknowledged and certainly not always exemplified, sometimes patriotism and protest go hand in hand. Sometimes the way we best honor the lives of those who fought for our freedom is to be completely and robustly engaged in the world and in our society. We honor those who made our freedom possible by taking our civic responsibility seriously enough that where we think something is wrong or misguided, we work hard to correct it. And sometimes that means paying a heavy price by breaking the rules. But then as we know from our text this morning, some rules require breaking. Amen. |
|
The Covenant Network2515 Fillmore St - San Francisco - CA - 94115 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Blessed
Rule Breaking