Lording it Over One Another

Lording it Over One Another
A Sermon in "The Other Six Days" Series
Rev. Mark Schaefer
Kay Spiritual Life Center
November 11, 2007
1 Samuel 8:4-9; Mark 10:35-35

1Samuel 8:4-9 "Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, "You are old and your sons do not follow in your ways; appoint for us, then, a king to govern us, like other nations." But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to govern us." Samuel prayed to the LORD, and the LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. Just as they have done to me, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so also they are doing to you. Now then, listen to their voice; only--you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them."

Mark 10:35-45 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to him, "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you." And he said to them, "What is it you want me to do for you?" And they said to him, "Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory." But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" They replied, "We are able." Then Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared." When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John. So Jesus called them and said to them, "You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.""

I. BEGINNING

There is a great scene in the movie The Breakfast Club when Emelio Estevez (Andrew, the jock) is talking with Anthony Michael Hall (Brian, the geek) and learns that Brian has a fake I.D. "What do you need a fake I.D. for?" Andrew asks in surprise. Brian answers: "So I can vote."

It's funny because not only are we expecting some other, darker, answer, but the idea that someone underage would get a fake ID to vote is ridiculous. Voting isn't cool--it's not something kids sneak out of their parents' homes to do. Voting is something we take for granted in this country--to the point where a great many Americans, perhaps even the majority of those eligible, do not vote. Some do it on principle: I have a friend who is a Christian anarchist and refuses to legitimate the system by participating in it. Others, perhaps, because they lack the time or ability. And still others, the majority, just don't think that voting affects their lives.

Does it? Does voting matter? In 1964, the United States Supreme Court stated:

No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. (Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17-18 [1964])

Voting is the great leveler--the mechanism that ensures the equality of all people in the political process. Everyone gets ONE vote--no matter how rich, how powerful. In this view, voting is seen as one of the fundamental guarantors of democracy.

II. THE ISSUE

But what is the Christian attitude toward voting ? Or for that matter, toward democracy itself? I mean, there is a lot of confusion in this country between our religion and our nation--you often see crosses decorated with stars and stripes, or other blended Christian and American symbols. But just because Americans are often confused about where the Gospel ends and the Constitution begins does not necessarily mean that Christianity and democracy have nothing to do with one another.

III. EXPLORING THE QUESTION

Those of us in the Methodist tradition often fall back on something called the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral ", which far from being some new kind of rhombus, is a method about which Methodists engage in theological reflection. In doing so, we follow the example of Wesley and look at Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience -- the four legs of the "Quadrilateral"

A. Scripture

The Church asserts that, even given the Quadrilateral, "Scripture is primary, revealing the Word of God 'so far as it is necessary for our salvation.'" And so, we'll start there.

There is depressingly little scriptural authority for addressing this question. The questions of equal voting representation in a federal republic do not seem to have weighed heavily on the minds of either Israel or the ancient Church. The word "democracy" does not appear at all in Scripture and the sole mention of republican government is found in the Apocrypha.

Therefore, this is not an issue that can be resolved with proof-texting . The issues are simply not addressed directly. Rather we must look toward the prevailing themes that are found in Scripture and make our determination accordingly. What emerges are the recurrent themes of God's sovereignty, equality before God of all humanity, an ethic of servant leadership, and lifting up of the oppressed.

Just looking through the Bible would make you think that God is a big fan of monarchies--there's lots of stuff on King David and the Davidic line. Even God's inbreaking reign is called "The Kingdom of God". But when we look closer, we find a current in the text that challenges this idea and turns it on its head.

There is a strong critical voice in the tradition of the Prophets and the tradition that flows out of the Book of Deuteronomy. It is a voice that calls Israel to be model alternate community, a community based not on human power but on God's sovereignty. We read a passage from this tradition earlier in 1 Samuel 8:

But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you." (I Samuel 8:7-8)

The message of this passage is clear: it is God who is Israel's true sovereign. From its very beginnings, Israel was called to be an alternative community, unlike other communities of the ancient world, with God as its king.

From the very beginning of the Biblical narrative, God's sovereignty is proclaimed. Genesis begins with a recounting of the Sovereign Creator fashioning humanity in the divine image. Exodus continues with God as divine warrior and sovereign leading the people out of oppression, and concluding with a proclamation of divine rule that is repeatedly echoed throughout Hebrew scripture. It is a proclamation that continues throughout Jewish and Christian scripture, all the way to Revelation's "and he shall reign for ever and ever."

And so the scriptures remind us that Earthly forms of power are legitimate only insofar as they recognize God's ultimate sovereignty. This is likely what Paul had in mind when he wrote "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God."

This recognition of God's sovereignty has concrete political consequences. When offered kingship, Gideon declares "I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the Lord will rule over you." (Judges 8:23) Gideon's recognition of God's sovereignty brings with it certain conclusions about the human exercise of power over others. As one Christian ethicist has noted: "There surely is a sense in which the sovereignty of God is the primary theological entry point on political questions."

From this recognition of God as sovereign comes an ethic of equality before God and of servant leadership toward each other. In the New Testament, this is nowhere seen more clearly than in the passage from Mark we read earlier:

So Jesus called them and said to them, "You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all."

In the writings of the prophets, Israel is constantly challenged to remember the poor, the widow, the stranger, and the orphan. In the Gospels, it is Jesus who ministers to the outcast and the marginalized, who describes discipleship in terms of service to the "least of these my brothers and sisters." When we recognize God's sovereignty, we come to understand our responsibility for each other, the lifting up of the downtrodden, and of giving a voice to the voiceless.

Throughout Scripture we encounter a recurrent theme: God and God alone is the true sovereign. When we recognize that God is sovereign, we likewise recognize that we, compared to God, are small and insignificant and dependent utterly on God. We are all equal in this way. When a human form of government places the rights of some above others, it leads away from a recognition of human equality and of the fact that only God is to be exalted.

We might not find in the Scriptural models anything resembling our modern liberal democracies, but we do find underlying principles that shine light upon the issue. Where there is democracy and equality, the recognition of God's sovereignty is easiest. Thus, democracy is the clearest acknowledgment of the sovereignty of God and of the equality of all before God.

B. Tradition

One is tempted to look at the traditions of the Church and to conclude that they have very little to do with democracy. However, democratic impulses can be identified not only in the early church, but in movements throughout Christian history including the Conciliar movement, congregationalism, and various other liberalizing efforts. Often, development of church thought on matters of governance parallels that in the civil arena.

The relationship between democracy and Christianity was made explicit by a number of nineteenth century American reformers who saw in democracy the 'ordered liberty' that best reflected the Christian liberty derived from "the heavenly doctrines of Christian Union and Holiness. " Many saw liberal democracy as the proper balance between individual freedom and necessary social restraint, between the libertarian and communitarian values of Christianity. This was done out of an understanding that "human governments should be reordered to correspond with God's democratic moral government."

At times, the churches have been very specific, making explicit declarations about democratic principles and egalitarian values. For example, as part of the Social Principles in its Book of Discipline, the United Methodist Church has declared:

The form and the leaders of all governments should be determined by exercise of the right to vote guaranteed to all adult citizens.... The strength of a political system depends on the full and willing participation of its citizens.

It appears that the traditions of the Church affirm the teachings of Scripture.

C. Reason

But what does reason have to say?

The Founding Fathers were all guided by reason when they sought to fashion a new kind of political order in America. The ideas of the social contract, of providing the greatest good for the greatest number, in fact, much of enlightenment thinking went into the thinking behind the founding of the Republic.

So, reason's on board.

D. Experience

And so what does our experience say?

At the dawn of the modern civil rights era, a landmark sociological study sought to examine the effects of segregation on the black population. The study concluded that segregation of white and black children in the public schools had a detrimental effect upon the black children, and that this impact was all the greater when given the "sanction of law." The result was a "sense of inferiority" that detrimentally affected children's ability to learn.

It has been the experience of disenfranchised communities that the effects of that disenfranchisement go far beyond those outlined in the laws that exclude them.

The experience of the community makes it clear--the injuries of disenfranchisement are not simply that citizens are not allowed a voice. They are injured in ways that go far beyond the political sphere, but go to their very self-esteem and human dignity. The wrongs of disenfranchisement penetrate all areas of life.

IV. VETERANS

Today is Veterans Day. It is a day on which we remember the men and women who risked their lives to defend this country. We recognize the sacrifices made by our veterans, first, in establishing independence and liberty, and thereafter for defending it. We remember and celebrate those who served in wars in the past: World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf. We remember those who continue to serve: in Afghanistan, in Iraq. We remember those who returned broken--physically, mentally, or spiritually--after having suffered the ravages of war. And we remember those who never returned to these shores--who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of their country.

As part of our community's reflection on this day, we opted not to have our traditional name reading service in favor of a silent vigil on the quad. Perhaps you saw it on your way in tonight: there are 3,858 crosses and markers on the quad in remembrance of the men and women who have lost their lives in the War in Iraq. Around the perimeter of the vigil we have placed seven placards. On each one are more than 500 names of the fallen, including their ages, ranks, and the dates of their deaths.

I would like to read to you four of those names:

Gregory E. MacDonald, 29, Marine Lance Corporal, Jun 25, 2003
Darryl T. Dent, 21, Army National Guard Specialist, Aug 26, 2003
Kevin M. Shea, 38, Marine Major, Sep 14, 2004
Randy L. Johnson, 34, Army Sergeant 1st Class, Sep 27, 2007

These four men--all have one thing in common. They are all from the District of Columbia. They died fighting for rights that they could not even fully enjoy here at home. For, the more than half a million residents of the District of Columbia, the Nation's Capital, have no voting representation in Congress. They pay taxes (among the highest per capita in the country). They are subject to and obey the laws of the United States. They fight and die in foreign wars. And yet, they have no voice in the legislature that levies those taxes, that passes those laws, and that declares those wars: the United States Congress.

The denial of the right to vote for so many whose lives are affected by the consequences of not having that vote is an egregious error. It may even be called a moral failing. It is immoral certainly to require men and women to risk their lives--and ultimately to give their lives--to protect a democracy they were not fully allowed to participate in. Kings would often send soldiers to die to protect interests that only the kings, never the soldiers, could enjoy. Democracies should not.

As we remember the fallen and remember their sacrifice, we are challenged to remember that there are those who have sacrificed their lives to preserve something they themselves were barred from. In an earlier age, black veterans fought for a segregated United States. Native Americans fought for a country that didn't consider them citizens until the early 20 th century.

Those who place their lives on the line for the defense of this country deserve nothing better than to be fully enfranchised in it. Our servicemen and -women deserve no less. If we are truly committed to the idea that we are all equal children of God, our faith demands no less.

V. END

Our Christian faith reminds us that only God is sovereign. Human governments are necessary to preserve social order, to provide justice, and to protect the rights of all. They are not to stand in the place of God, they are not to claim power and authority that belongs to God alone. They are not to lord their power over those whom they govern.

Christ commands us that leadership means service, that it means humility, that it means protecting the interests of those who have the least . The Christian then has a warrant for ensuring that those who lead do not do so at the expense of the people. The Christian seeks to ensure that no one is elevated above anyone else and that everyone has a voice.

Scripture challenges us to fashion systems of equality for all people where God alone is exalted. Those who are denied the right to vote--like the people of the District of Columbia-- are not being treated as equals and others, and their interests, have been exalted over them.

Tradition challenges us to fashion systems where people are given a voice in their own governance. The people of the District have been denied a voice in the governance of their nation, and ultimately of their city. Reason challenges us to seek the greatest good. The rights of the people of D.C. have been ignored and very little good has come of it.

Experience reminds us that denial of a voice impacts lives and communities in comprehensive ways. People in DC have been treated as second class citizens for a long time, can we not see everywhere the impacts of that second class status?

The lack of voting representation for the residents of the District of Columbia is a moral wrong that must be addressed by the community of faith. We can disagree as to how that should be done. But what we must conclude in the final analysis is that Christians cannot in good conscience ignore the continuing disenfranchisement of more than half a million of their fellow citizens.

Will the Church to stand on the side of the disenfranchised ? Will those of us with a voice use that voice to ensure that all are heard? Will we continue to promote democracy out of a recognition of the equality of all before God and the law? Or will we do nothing--and those of us who have a voice continue to lord our power over those who have no voice? We live in a democracy. The choice, after all, is ours.

Notes
1 Maccabees 8:1-16 contains a glowing evaluation of the Romans and betrays the author's admiration of republican governance. It is one of Scripture's more unintentionally ironic texts given later Jewish hostility to Roman power.
Bruce C Birch., Walter Brueggemann, Terrence E. Fretheim and David L. Petersen. A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999, 229.
Birch and Brueggemann, at 219.
Romans 13:1. It should be noted that for Paul, all forms of government were not long for this world. He was expecting the immanent end of history. His evaluation of the Roman state may have been different had he been contemplating the long haul.
This idea is reflected in a statement in the Passover liturgy: "We have no king but you." This fundamental presumption is behind the tragic irony of the proclamation by the chief priest in John 19:15 "We have no king but Caesar."
Wogaman, supra, at 152.
Wogaman, at 149.
Douglas M. Strong, Perfectionist Politics: Abolitionism and the Religious Tensions of American Democracy. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1999, at 42.
Indeed, it was not only the Christians who made the connection between democracy and faith. During World War I, Rabbi Kaufmann Kohler declared that democracy "found its classical expression in Israel's holy writings" where law was proclaimed as "the eternal source of liberty." One commentator notes: "In a single sentence, Kohler braided liberty, democracy, and law into a strand that connected the divine revelation at Sinai to the principles of American constitutionalism." Jerold S. Auerbach, Rabbis and Lawyers: The Journey From Torah to Constitution. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990, at 19.
Strong, supra, at 42.
Harriet Jane Olson, Ed. The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church: 2000. Nashville, Tennessee: The United Methodist Publishing House, 2000, ¶ 164 (A)
Id. ¶164(B). See, also,.
Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 494 (1954).
Id.
http://icasualties.org/
An additional twenty citizens of the District of Columbia have been wounded in combat.

Back to Sermons page

Back to AU UMC Home

No part of this text may be reproduced or otherwise disseminated without the express written consent of the author.


Home \| About Us \| Worship \| Study \| Community \| Service \| Justice \| UMSA \| Support our Ministry \| Sign up
Sermon Page \| Preaching Resources
*Lording it Over One Another* A Sermon in "The Other Six Days" Series Rev. Mark Schaefer Kay Spiritual Life Center November 11, 2007 1 Samuel 8:4-9; Mark 10:35-35 1Samuel 8:4-9 "Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, "You are old and your sons do not follow in your ways; appoint for us, then, a king to govern us, like other nations." But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to govern us." Samuel prayed to the LORD, and the LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. Just as they have done to me, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so also they are doing to you. Now then, listen to their voice; only--you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them." Mark 10:35-45 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to him, "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you." And he said to them, "What is it you want me to do for you?" And they said to him, "Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory." But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" They replied, "We are able." Then Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared." When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John. So Jesus called them and said to them, "You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many."" I. BEGINNING There is a great scene in the movie The Breakfast Club when Emelio Estevez (Andrew, the jock) is talking with Anthony Michael Hall (Brian, the geek) and learns that Brian has a fake I.D. "What do you need a fake I.D. for?" Andrew asks in surprise. Brian answers: "So I can vote." It's funny because not only are we expecting some other, darker, answer, but the idea that someone underage would get a fake ID to vote is ridiculous. Voting isn't cool--it's not something kids sneak out of their parents' homes to do. Voting is something we take for granted in this country--to the point where a great many Americans, perhaps even the majority of those eligible, do not vote. Some do it on principle: I have a friend who is a Christian anarchist and refuses to legitimate the system by participating in it. Others, perhaps, because they lack the time or ability. And still others, the majority, just don't think that voting affects their lives. Does it? Does voting matter? In 1964, the United States Supreme Court stated: No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined. (Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17-18 [1964]) Voting is the great leveler--the mechanism that ensures the equality of all people in the political process. Everyone gets ONE vote--no matter how rich, how powerful. In this view, voting is seen as one of the fundamental guarantors of democracy. II. THE ISSUE But what is the Christian attitude toward voting ? Or for that matter, toward democracy itself? I mean, there is a lot of confusion in this country between our religion and our nation--you often see crosses decorated with stars and stripes, or other blended Christian and American symbols. But just because Americans are often confused about where the Gospel ends and the Constitution begins does not necessarily mean that Christianity and democracy have nothing to do with one another. III. EXPLORING THE QUESTION Those of us in the Methodist tradition often fall back on something called the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral ", which far from being some new kind of rhombus, is a method about which Methodists engage in theological reflection. In doing so, we follow the example of Wesley and look at Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience -- the four legs of the "Quadrilateral" A. Scripture The Church asserts that, even given the Quadrilateral, "Scripture is primary, revealing the Word of God 'so far as it is necessary for our salvation.'" And so, we'll start there. There is depressingly little scriptural authority for addressing this question. The questions of equal voting representation in a federal republic do not seem to have weighed heavily on the minds of either Israel or the ancient Church. The word "democracy" does not appear at all in Scripture and the sole mention of republican government is found in the Apocrypha. Therefore, this is not an issue that can be resolved with proof-texting . The issues are simply not addressed directly. Rather we must look toward the prevailing themes that are found in Scripture and make our determination accordingly. What emerges are the recurrent themes of God's sovereignty, equality before God of all humanity, an ethic of servant leadership, and lifting up of the oppressed. Just looking through the Bible would make you think that God is a big fan of monarchies--there's lots of stuff on King David and the Davidic line. Even God's inbreaking reign is called "The Kingdom of God". But when we look closer, we find a current in the text that challenges this idea and turns it on its head. There is a strong critical voice in the tradition of the Prophets and the tradition that flows out of the Book of Deuteronomy. It is a voice that calls Israel to be model alternate community, a community based not on human power but on God's sovereignty. We read a passage from this tradition earlier in 1 Samuel 8: But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you." (I Samuel 8:7-8) The message of this passage is clear: it is God who is Israel's true sovereign. From its very beginnings, Israel was called to be an alternative community, unlike other communities of the ancient world, with God as its king. From the very beginning of the Biblical narrative, God's sovereignty is proclaimed. Genesis begins with a recounting of the Sovereign Creator fashioning humanity in the divine image. Exodus continues with God as divine warrior and sovereign leading the people out of oppression, and concluding with a proclamation of divine rule that is repeatedly echoed throughout Hebrew scripture. It is a proclamation that continues throughout Jewish and Christian scripture, all the way to Revelation's "and he shall reign for ever and ever." And so the scriptures remind us that Earthly forms of power are legitimate only insofar as they recognize God's ultimate sovereignty. This is likely what Paul had in mind when he wrote "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God." This recognition of God's sovereignty has concrete political consequences. When offered kingship, Gideon declares "I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the Lord will rule over you." (Judges 8:23) Gideon's recognition of God's sovereignty brings with it certain conclusions about the human exercise of power over others. As one Christian ethicist has noted: "There surely is a sense in which the sovereignty of God is the primary theological entry point on political questions." From this recognition of God as sovereign comes an ethic of equality before God and of servant leadership toward each other. In the New Testament, this is nowhere seen more clearly than in the passage from Mark we read earlier: So Jesus called them and said to them, "You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all." In the writings of the prophets, Israel is constantly challenged to remember the poor, the widow, the stranger, and the orphan. In the Gospels, it is Jesus who ministers to the outcast and the marginalized, who describes discipleship in terms of service to the "least of these my brothers and sisters." When we recognize God's sovereignty, we come to understand our responsibility for each other, the lifting up of the downtrodden, and of giving a voice to the voiceless. Throughout Scripture we encounter a recurrent theme: God and God alone is the true sovereign. When we recognize that God is sovereign, we likewise recognize that we, compared to God, are small and insignificant and dependent utterly on God. We are all equal in this way. When a human form of government places the rights of some above others, it leads away from a recognition of human equality and of the fact that only God is to be exalted. We might not find in the Scriptural models anything resembling our modern liberal democracies, but we do find underlying principles that shine light upon the issue. Where there is democracy and equality, the recognition of God's sovereignty is easiest. Thus, democracy is the clearest acknowledgment of the sovereignty of God and of the equality of all before God. B. Tradition One is tempted to look at the traditions of the Church and to conclude that they have very little to do with democracy. However, democratic impulses can be identified not only in the early church, but in movements throughout Christian history including the Conciliar movement, congregationalism, and various other liberalizing efforts. Often, development of church thought on matters of governance parallels that in the civil arena. The relationship between democracy and Christianity was made explicit by a number of nineteenth century American reformers who saw in democracy the 'ordered liberty' that best reflected the Christian liberty derived from "the heavenly doctrines of Christian Union and Holiness. " Many saw liberal democracy as the proper balance between individual freedom and necessary social restraint, between the libertarian and communitarian values of Christianity. This was done out of an understanding that "human governments should be reordered to correspond with God's democratic moral government." At times, the churches have been very specific, making explicit declarations about democratic principles and egalitarian values. For example, as part of the Social Principles in its Book of Discipline, the United Methodist Church has declared: The form and the leaders of all governments should be determined by exercise of the right to vote guaranteed to all adult citizens.... The strength of a political system depends on the full and willing participation of its citizens. It appears that the traditions of the Church affirm the teachings of Scripture. C. Reason But what does reason have to say? The Founding Fathers were all guided by reason when they sought to fashion a new kind of political order in America. The ideas of the social contract, of providing the greatest good for the greatest number, in fact, much of enlightenment thinking went into the thinking behind the founding of the Republic. So, reason's on board. D. Experience And so what does our experience say? At the dawn of the modern civil rights era, a landmark sociological study sought to examine the effects of segregation on the black population. The study concluded that segregation of white and black children in the public schools had a detrimental effect upon the black children, and that this impact was all the greater when given the "sanction of law." The result was a "sense of inferiority" that detrimentally affected children's ability to learn. It has been the experience of disenfranchised communities that the effects of that disenfranchisement go far beyond those outlined in the laws that exclude them. The experience of the community makes it clear--the injuries of disenfranchisement are not simply that citizens are not allowed a voice. They are injured in ways that go far beyond the political sphere, but go to their very self-esteem and human dignity. The wrongs of disenfranchisement penetrate all areas of life. IV. VETERANS Today is Veterans Day. It is a day on which we remember the men and women who risked their lives to defend this country. We recognize the sacrifices made by our veterans, first, in establishing independence and liberty, and thereafter for defending it. We remember and celebrate those who served in wars in the past: World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf. We remember those who continue to serve: in Afghanistan, in Iraq. We remember those who returned broken--physically, mentally, or spiritually--after having suffered the ravages of war. And we remember those who never returned to these shores--who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of their country. As part of our community's reflection on this day, we opted not to have our traditional name reading service in favor of a silent vigil on the quad. Perhaps you saw it on your way in tonight: there are 3,858 crosses and markers on the quad in remembrance of the men and women who have lost their lives in the War in Iraq. Around the perimeter of the vigil we have placed seven placards. On each one are more than 500 names of the fallen, including their ages, ranks, and the dates of their deaths. I would like to read to you four of those names: Gregory E. MacDonald, 29, Marine Lance Corporal, Jun 25, 2003 Darryl T. Dent, 21, Army National Guard Specialist, Aug 26, 2003 Kevin M. Shea, 38, Marine Major, Sep 14, 2004 Randy L. Johnson, 34, Army Sergeant 1st Class, Sep 27, 2007 These four men--all have one thing in common. They are all from the District of Columbia. They died fighting for rights that they could not even fully enjoy here at home. For, the more than half a million residents of the District of Columbia, the Nation's Capital, have no voting representation in Congress. They pay taxes (among the highest per capita in the country). They are subject to and obey the laws of the United States. They fight and die in foreign wars. And yet, they have no voice in the legislature that levies those taxes, that passes those laws, and that declares those wars: the United States Congress. The denial of the right to vote for so many whose lives are affected by the consequences of not having that vote is an egregious error. It may even be called a moral failing. It is immoral certainly to require men and women to risk their lives--and ultimately to give their lives--to protect a democracy they were not fully allowed to participate in. Kings would often send soldiers to die to protect interests that only the kings, never the soldiers, could enjoy. Democracies should not. As we remember the fallen and remember their sacrifice, we are challenged to remember that there are those who have sacrificed their lives to preserve something they themselves were barred from. In an earlier age, black veterans fought for a segregated United States. Native Americans fought for a country that didn't consider them citizens until the early 20 th century. Those who place their lives on the line for the defense of this country deserve nothing better than to be fully enfranchised in it. Our servicemen and -women deserve no less. If we are truly committed to the idea that we are all equal children of God, our faith demands no less. V. END Our Christian faith reminds us that only God is sovereign. Human governments are necessary to preserve social order, to provide justice, and to protect the rights of all. They are not to stand in the place of God, they are not to claim power and authority that belongs to God alone. They are not to lord their power over those whom they govern. Christ commands us that leadership means service, that it means humility, that it means protecting the interests of those who have the least . The Christian then has a warrant for ensuring that those who lead do not do so at the expense of the people. The Christian seeks to ensure that no one is elevated above anyone else and that everyone has a voice. Scripture challenges us to fashion systems of equality for all people where God alone is exalted. Those who are denied the right to vote--like the people of the District of Columbia-- are not being treated as equals and others, and their interests, have been exalted over them. Tradition challenges us to fashion systems where people are given a voice in their own governance. The people of the District have been denied a voice in the governance of their nation, and ultimately of their city. Reason challenges us to seek the greatest good. The rights of the people of D.C. have been ignored and very little good has come of it. Experience reminds us that denial of a voice impacts lives and communities in comprehensive ways. People in DC have been treated as second class citizens for a long time, can we not see everywhere the impacts of that second class status? The lack of voting representation for the residents of the District of Columbia is a moral wrong that must be addressed by the community of faith. We can disagree as to how that should be done. But what we must conclude in the final analysis is that Christians cannot in good conscience ignore the continuing disenfranchisement of more than half a million of their fellow citizens. Will the Church to stand on the side of the disenfranchised ? Will those of us with a voice use that voice to ensure that all are heard? Will we continue to promote democracy out of a recognition of the equality of all before God and the law? Or will we do nothing--and those of us who have a voice continue to lord our power over those who have no voice? We live in a democracy. The choice, after all, is ours. Notes 1 Maccabees 8:1-16 contains a glowing evaluation of the Romans and betrays the author's admiration of republican governance. It is one of Scripture's more unintentionally ironic texts given later Jewish hostility to Roman power. Bruce C Birch., Walter Brueggemann, Terrence E. Fretheim and David L. Petersen. A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999, 229. Birch and Brueggemann, at 219. Romans 13:1. It should be noted that for Paul, all forms of government were not long for this world. He was expecting the immanent end of history. His evaluation of the Roman state may have been different had he been contemplating the long haul. This idea is reflected in a statement in the Passover liturgy: "We have no king but you." This fundamental presumption is behind the tragic irony of the proclamation by the chief priest in John 19:15 "We have no king but Caesar." Wogaman, supra, at 152. Wogaman, at 149. Douglas M. Strong, Perfectionist Politics: Abolitionism and the Religious Tensions of American Democracy. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1999, at 42. Indeed, it was not only the Christians who made the connection between democracy and faith. During World War I, Rabbi Kaufmann Kohler declared that democracy "found its classical expression in Israel's holy writings" where law was proclaimed as "the eternal source of liberty." One commentator notes: "In a single sentence, Kohler braided liberty, democracy, and law into a strand that connected the divine revelation at Sinai to the principles of American constitutionalism." Jerold S. Auerbach, Rabbis and Lawyers: The Journey From Torah to Constitution. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990, at 19. Strong, supra, at 42. Harriet Jane Olson, Ed. The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church: 2000. Nashville, Tennessee: The United Methodist Publishing House, 2000, ¶ 164 (A) Id. ¶164(B). See, also,. Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 494 (1954). Id. http://icasualties.org/ An additional twenty citizens of the District of Columbia have been wounded in combat. Back to Sermons page Back to AU UMC Home Copyright © 2007. Mark A. Schaefer. No part of this text may be reproduced or otherwise disseminated without the express written consent of the author.

	The AU United Methodist-Protestant Community is an open and ecumenical fellowship for all students, faculty, and staff regardless of age, race, gender, ability, sexual orientation, denomination, or religious background.
	Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors. The People of The United Methodist Church