Lester Start’s Works

1The Moral Law of the Universe

L. J. Start

November 25, 1979

First Baptist, Kalamazoo

The sermon this morning might better be titled “The Law of the Harvest.” As it could connect with the Thanksgiving theme of the holiday weekend. But it is the law I want to talk about today, the law of the harvest that one reads in Paul’s words in his letter to the Galatians, “whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.” What we sow, we reap. If we sow tares or weeds, we reap tares and weeds. If we sow bad seed, we cannot expect good results. As Jesus said, we cannot get grapes from thistles or figs from thorns. There is a basic law of the harvest that every farmer, every gardener knows, “whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.”

This verse in Paul’s letter has a fundamental meaning that far transcends the agricultural application. It suggests a cosmic principle that is embodied in the laws of nature and in the moral order of human history as well. There is a kind of cosmic justice, a law of moral compensation that is found in the inexorable laws of nature as well. For example, we cannot get out of a transaction more than what we put into it. [We can change energy but not augment it in the process - that is why we cannot create a perpetual motion machine.] There is a kind of justice in all transactions where energy is transformed or chemical changes take place. That is why their descriptions or explanations take the form of equations.

There is an intuitive sense of this cosmic justice in our reactions to weather patterns. We are convinced that there must be a fair balance of warm and cold over the seasons. That is why you hear people say in response to the beautiful weather we’ve been having this past week: We’ll pay for this later. I prefer to think the beautiful fall weather is part repayment for the past two winters we have had which have been unjustly cold and snowy even by Michigan standards. The point is, though, however we count, we expect a kind of fair balance, a cosmic justice. Just as we expect from “the law of averages” an ultimate balance.

The law of the harvest is simply a special application of cosmic justice. And in its broader implications as Paul clearly intends it, it means we cannot expect good ends from bad means; we cannot sow unregenerate appetites and desires and reap the spiritual harvest of happiness and serenity, peace and joy. In the culture of the soil men are never so stupid as to expect grapes from thorns or figs from thistles. Tares yield tares. But in the culture of the soul we have yet to learn that selfishness cannot yield fellowship, that enmity cannot bring peace, that manipulation of others cannot bring cooperation or acts of spite or hate generate mutual confidence and love. We reap the consequences of our actions. God is not mocked. The Greek word here is a vivid one; it means literally we cannot “turn up our nose” - we would say, we cannot thumb our nose - at God. There is a law of moral compensation, a moral law of the harvest, as fixed and fundamental as the law of gravity. We cannot break it; we flout it at our peril. If we try to break it, just as if we try to break the law of gravity, we will find that we break ourselves against it.

But, surely, one might object: there is a difference between a natural law and the moral law. One can verify experimentally natural law. But who is to say what a moral law is? How are we to take seriously in the 20^th century moral precepts developed in a simple agrarian society so many centuries ago? Besides all moral principles are relative to a society, or a group, or a country or an era. As Shakespeare said, “Nothing’s either right or wrong, but thinking makes it so.” Or as Kipling put it, “There are nine and sixty ways of conducting tribal lays, and every single one of them is right.” Kipling was the one who taught us that “East is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet.” The message is clear: there are no universal moral precepts or laws.

And contemporary rhetoric sounds a similar note. There is a tendency to say why should another impose his value system on me, as if moral values were a kind of personal option or taste or right - like one’s choice of an ice cream flavor. The implication is that morality is a personal choice of what one who likes - when the fact is that morality relates to interpersonal relationships and must be determined on a basis larger than one’s personal wishes.

But the objections still are well made. That there is no evidence of a universal moral law, that facts are different from values, that we can reach agreement on the truth of facts but are left with values as simply a matter of taste, relative to the time, the society, the situation.

One response to the objection is to cite the authority of Scripture. In a sense, I began by doing this with my text from the Christian scripture, “As a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” What I would like to urge, however, is that so pervasive and persuasive is this moral truth, that the scriptures of all the great world religions have recognized it in one way or another. Common agreement may not constitute proof, but at least it refutes the notion that the moral law is restricted to a minority religious sect that emerged long ago - and suggests that the universal agreement approaches a kind of intuitive awareness of a cosmic law of moral justice.

There is the verse from Judaism read in the Scripture lesson. “Behold, ye have sinned against the Lord, and be sure your sin will find you out.” This verse is often misread. It does not say - Be sure your sin will be found out. It does say, Be sure your sin will find it you out. It will leave its mark upon you. The consequences of sin cannot be avoided. They may be hidden, they may not be found out. But they’ll find you out.

The oldest scriptures are in Hinduism. And from the Hindu Upansishads we read the famous law of karma, the most ancient expression of the cosmic moral law, “As is a person’s desires, so is his will; and as his will, so is his deed; and whatever deed he does, that will he reap.” In other words, deeds determine destiny; good deeds, good destiny; bad deeds, bad destiny. Not that there is any judge handing out rewards and punishments. This is simply the way it is. And with the Hindu belief in reincarnation one can account for one’s poor situation by saying one must have sinned dreadfully in one’s former life to be reborn like this. If one persists in living like a beast or a pig, Hindu logic suggests you may be reborn as such. Jainism, another religion of India, holds the same doctrine. “Every deed will bear its fruit to men.” Misery arises from wicked deeds. In this life and the next people cannot escape the effects of their own actions.

Buddhism has a similar teaching, that creatures follow the destiny of their deeds. “Think not lightly of evil, it will not befall me” we read in their scriptures. “Little by little, as drop by drop the pitcher is filled, so little by little one by doing evil becomes evil.” Nor should one think lightly of good, for good consequences follow good acts as the furrow follows the plow.

Confucianism teaches “Good and evil do not wrongfully befall men, but heaven sends down misery or happiness according to their conduct.” And Taoism, another ancient Chinese religion, teaches “The reward of good and evil follows as the shadow follows an object.”

The Koran, the Muslim Bible, proclaims, “Every soul shall be recompensed for that which it has earned, and they shall not be wronged.” And the Baha’i Faith, a modern experiment in a universal religion born in Persia in the last century teaches - “Naught is reaped but what is sown.”

No, God is not mocked: whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Ye have sinned against the Lord, and be sure your sin will find you out. This is the way it is. There are moral forces of justice that rule individual and world history just as there are cosmic forces of justice that represent the order of nature.

And the nature of these moral forces, this spirit that might be called the law of the harvest is not so hard to discover in spite of our relativistic age. It might be stated in this way: the ends we seek to achieve partake of the quality of the means by which we seek to achieve them. If we seek reconciliation, peace, harmony, but we try to achieve this by conflict, war, and stirring up dissension, we will fail. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. If we wish good, we must reflect the good in our actions. If we wish peace, good will, helpfulness in others, we must reflect peace, goodwill and helpfulness in our own actions. Or expressed negatively - we cannot cheat or be dishonest in a business transaction - in human relationships or in a marriage and expect the fruits of credit, confidence or love.

This suggests a second moral principle that incidentally can be found in all the world’s religions - that is the “Golden Rule” - “all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” What one wishes as a reward, as a harvest for one’s labors in the vineyard of the Lord, he must express in the quality of his life in relation to others.

It is by loving others that love is received. It is by helping others that one is helped. It is by understanding others that one is understood. And it is by forgiving others that one is himself forgiven. This is the way we bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ, as Paul said.

Paul puts the law of the harvest of this way: he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption and he who sows to the spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Sewing and reaping go together. To sow to one’s own flesh means to be concerned with one’s own desires and needs. And who knows how to put a ceiling on his personal desires and needs? What happens is that one is enslaved, victimized by the demands of the self to achieve happiness. But he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. He who commits himself to the Spirit of Christ, sowing faith, hope, and love, will reap the sure harvest of joy and peace in the knowledge that he is reflecting the creative love of God.

Therefore let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart, says Paul. In so doing, we do the work of God.

East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet - but the lines go on - “til earth and sky stand presently at God’s great judgment seat.” There is a law that unites East and West, the law of the harvest. And this cosmic moral law is not just judgment - but promise of a world of peace where all men will unite in expressing the law of love -

Therefore let us not be not weary in well-doing - for in due season we shall reap - if we do not lose heart - for this is the law of the harvest - the universal, cosmic, moral law.

Pastoral Prayer

Oh God of love - teach us the higher meaning of Thy creative love. So often we think of Thee as the loving father, as if it is Thy business to love us, as if somehow it is our right to receive Thy love. It is as if Thou art a doting parent who fondly approves everything we do.

Teach us the higher meaning of love - that creative spirit which affirms and inspires the highest and the best that is within us. May we be so filled with the vision of Thy perfection, that we will aspire to all things whatsoever that are lofty and noble and lovely and of good to report. Above all teach us to follow the example of Thy Son, Jesus Christ, Who gave of Himself that others might live in the life eternal.

Teach us, we pray, that Thou dost require something of us, to respond to Thy love. May we sow seeds of understanding, forgiveness, charity and acceptance. May we choke out the weeds of malice, envy, judgment, rebuke, and self justification in our souls. Above all may we be sensitive to the needs and concerns of others. If we become annoyed with another, may we stop to consider what problems, burdens, he may be carrying to make him behave as he does. If our brother offends us, let us remember first that he is our brother, not that he has offended us, and then may we bear the offense with forbearance.

O God, teach us to be sensitive to the needs of others and so reflect the love of Christ. May we remember those who are lonely, frightened, in physical pain, in the suffering of remorse. May they and we feel the assurance of Thy love to be present when lonely, to dispel the specters of fear when frightened, to comfort us in pain, to point the way to a better tomorrow when we feel remorse.

We would remember all those in trouble, especially in these days our fellow Americans held hostage in a hostile land. Be Thou their stay and deliverer, we pray. And may we take up the task of resisting evil with a sense of courage. May we reflect in our own lives the law of the harvest -sowing in the spirit of faith, hope, and the love - and reaping a sense of fellowship with Thee, and Thy Son.

1The Grace of Gratitude

11/18/79

L. J. Start

First Baptist Kalamazoo

Thanksgiving is the oldest and most truly American of all our national holidays. And its mode of celebration is little changed from that first Thanksgiving of the Pilgrims way back in l621. Then, as now, the holiday period was an occasion for thanking God in public worship for His providence, and remembering God’s bounty in special feasts at home. In early New England, as now, it was an occasion for families to get together to celebrate. The head of the family, or the one with the biggest house or longest tablecloth, calls a reunion of the family. It is a time of homecoming, as the famous Durie print Home for Thanksgiving that has adorned so many calendars, so charmingly indicates. And it is a time of sharing: Thanksgiving baskets are shared; gifts of fruit are exchanged. The precedent was set on that first Thanksgiving when the Pilgrims invited Massasoit, the Indian chief, to share in their meal. He came but bringing with him 90 braves with brave appetites, outnumbering their hosts by some 40 souls. That is indeed sharing, a precedent seldom equaled.

That first Thanksgiving was called by the Governor of the Colony, William Bradford, as a response to the special providence of God. Late in 1621 when the crops were all in, and the harvest appeared plentiful, he issued this proclamation:

To All the Pilgrims:

Inasmuch as the great Father has given us this year an

abundant harvest of Indian corn, wheat, beans, squashes,

and garden vegetables, and has made the forests to abound

with game and the sea with fish and clams, and inasmuch as

He has protected us from the ravages of the savages, has

spared us from pestilence and disease, has granted us free-

dom to worship God according to the dictates of our own

conscience; now, I, your magistrate, do proclaim that all

ye pilgrims with your wives and little ones do gather at

the meeting house on the hill … (etc.)

Of course there are historical precedents for harvest festivals. As long as man has tilled the

soil, he has celebrated the harvest season when he reaps the rewards of his labors. There were harvest festivals in the old world, the festival of harvest home in England when the last cart load of grain was brought in from the field. Then was sung the song of harvest home and there was a feast in celebration.

There is, too, the Biblical precedent which probably influenced the Pilgrims even more. They did not celebrate the usual holidays celebrated by the church at home — Christmas and Easter. These were rejected as Roman corruptions. But the Biblical Feast of Booths or Feast of Tabernacles (Succoth in the Hebrew) may well have been an inspiration. This was basically a harvest festival, but the Hebrew people had poured into it a religious meaning which transcended thanksgiving for the fruits of the earth. They saw in it a reflection of their history under God. The booths, tents, tabernacles which initially probably served as collection points for the harvest

were seen to be symbols of the temporary tents in which the children of Israel lived in the wilderness after their flight from Egyptian bondage to freedom. Thanksgiving is not only for harvest but for God’s providence.

And the Pilgrims understood this celebration to be a recognition of the special providence of God. And indeed there was reason to acknowledge God’s special providence. In the first place, when the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth rock in December l620 and moved to take over the land, they found no hostile Indians. The reason was that the land belonged to the Patuxet tribe which prior to their landing had been wiped out by a plague — probably smallpox or measles spread by the white man who earlier had landed in exploration projects. The Pilgrims barely survived that first winter even when they were able to take over these lands without opposition.

There was another great blessing in the early spring after that first winter: the arrival of an English-speaking Christian Indian known as Squanto. He is the friendly Indian mentioned in the history books. In fact, Squanto is a much neglected hero of the early Pilgrim days. It is hard to believe, but prior to the landing of the Pilgrims Squanto had made two round trips to Europe.

In 1605 a Captain Weymouth on a voyage of exploration brought Squanto, a Paatuxet Indian, back to England as a kind of souvenir. He learned English and Christianity, but he grew homesick for America. In 1614, then, he returned with Captain John Smith on another voyage of exploration and trade. Unfortunately, after Captain Smith had sailed home, another ship which had sailed with him remained to trade, and its captain captured Squanto and some other Indians and sold them into slavery in Spain. Nothing was ever heard of the others — Indians were never broken to slavery; they preferred death — but Squanto was bought by some friars who treated him well, and soon he had opportunity to go back to England whence he found a way to return to American six months before the Pilgrims. When he found his tribe wiped out, he lived with another, but when he met the Pilgrims, he joined them and became one of their saints, or true believers.

But even more — he it was who taught these Pilgrims who were shop-keepers, artisans, townsfolk how to survive in the wilderness. He taught these innocents abroad how to plant corn on the worn out fields by placing three herring in each hill as fertilizer. He taught them how to catch the fish and other game, as well. And it is Squanto who arranged the peaceful trade relations with Massasoit, the great Indian chief — and arranged the famous treaty that Governor Bradford reported a quarter century later was never broken. No wonder Governor Bradford records that he was “a special instrument sent by God for their good beyond expectation”.

Finally, and this seemed truly providential, the Pilgrims found stores of seed corn which they used to survive that first winter and to plant crops for the next year.

No wonder the Pilgrims felt special Thanksgiving for the special providence of God. And ever since Americans have felt a special sense of gratitude for God’s providence in making possible not only a new Jerusalem where men could worship God in freedom, but a new world in which God’s bounty would prosper all men.

Thanksgiving, then, was the response for the special providence of God in history — not simply for the fruits of the earth. And this has been the spirit of the thanksgiving season — a sense that the spirit of freedom, shared riches, and fellowship were a uniquely American expression of God’s promise of a new Jerusalem.

Thanksgiving is indeed appropriate, as we survey our history, our situation, and our future. There are problems facing contemporary America, but nothing like the problems of the Pilgrims. And as the Psalmist teaches, it is when we feel troubled and cast down in our souls that we must remember how God has led us in the past, and so have confidence for the future.

In all things give thanks, says Paul. This does not mean to give thanks for all things. We cannot give thanks for pain and sickness and hate and misery and fear. We cannot give thanks that some of our people are being held hostage in our embassy in Iran. We can give thanks that in pain and sickness there are healing forces from God and work, and that in hate and fear there is the power of love to overcome hate and cast out fear. And we can be grateful for the pressure and intercession of nations and peoples on our behalf to mitigate the terrorism in Iran. And who knows but what some Squanto may emerge in Iran as an instrument of God to deliver the people. Even in this, in all things we must give thanks to God, remembering His mercy and guidance, our help in ages past — and our hope for the years to come. There is this blessing in thanksgiving — it gives us a sense of history and purpose as a nation.

But further, there is a grace in gratitude that enriches us spiritually as individuals, as well. It is a free response to God’s goodness. The grace of gratitude can be understood in many ways, just as the term grace has many meanings. We speak of acting with good grace or bad grace, of having the grace to do something. It suggests good will, favor, a pleasing quality. In all of its positive meanings, it reflects the spiritual quality of responding to the love of God.

We can see this clearly negatively in the spirit of ingratitude, as a lack of response to the good will, good acts of another. I think it was Jim Farley, a political advisor to FDR, who first told the story about a congressman who learned that one of his old supporters had withdrawn his contributions. So he goes to his old friend and asks, “How can you do this? Remember how I helped you with a business loan when you needed it? Got your son into West Point? Helped your no-good son-in-law get on the public pay roll? How can you not support me now?” Came the reply, “That’s all true, but what have you done for me lately?” This is the ungrateful, ungracious spirit.

But there are other ways we can fail to respond to the good will of another. Jesus said it is more blessed to give than to receive. Giving is also a more comfortable position than receiving, for the receiver might have to feel “beholden” to the giver, indebted, and therefore unwilling to be in that position. Sometimes, a simple expression of appreciation or gratitude is turned aside and blunted by one’s saying, “that’s my job”, or “you don’t have to thank me”, or “really, it was nothing”. How hard it seems sometimes to accept a simple compliment, as well. It’s almost as if we are reluctant to feel close to another and so we rebuff the expressions of appreciation and sometimes quite ungraciously. Are we reluctant to take free expressions of love?

Giving and taking are really interrelated. When one person takes what another wants to give — like an expression of gratitude — he has thereby given to the other. Conversely, if one refuses to take what another wants to give, refuses the thanks, he has somehow taken from and diminished the other. This explains the irony of the counselor who calls it “resistive” when the counselee refuses to take from the counselor — but calls it “professional ethics” when he refuses to take from the counselee. But, as Jesus taught, expressions of love, given and received, indicate that love is a resource that increases as it is shared. And the grace of gratitude is such an expression of love.

Theologically speaking, grace is the freely given, unmerited love of God; it also means the influence of God regenerating man as a divine virtue. Gratitude is a response to the freely given love of God as experienced in His creation or through another. The grace of gratitude is this response to the influence of God, acting to regenerate one to acts of creative love in response. Gratitude is not a simple amenity or polite social response — it is a reflection of the positive spirit of the love of God. The spirit of gratitude is a response to, and a reflection of, God’s love.

In all things give thanks, says Paul. Rejoice always and pray without ceasing. Thanksgiving, joy, and prayer are conjoined by Paul as marks of the early church and its believers — for thanksgiving, gratitude, points up our blessings, counts our joys, makes us rejoice, and brings us to that constant sense of the love and providence of God which is what is meant by ceaseless prayer in this context.

The grace of gratitude is the response of love. It is giving and receiving of love. And as Paul says elsewhere (Cor. 13), love is patient and kind, never selfish or quick to take offence; love keeps no score of wrongs. But there is nothing love cannot face; there is no limit to its faith, its hope, its endurance. Therefore let us in all things be thankful — reflect the grace of gratitude. It is our participation in the love of God.

1Roots

November 7, 1979

First Baptist, Kalamazoo

My sermon subject today has been suggested by the Church school leadership. You see, ordinarily, on some Sunday in September, there is some kind of special attention to the beginning of the Fall program in Christian education with special recognition of the teachers and particular classes. Now we did do this in the Belfrey and Bulletin, but not in the church service. Somehow other concerns other themes intervened. But now since this is national education week it seems appropriate to call attention to the role of the Church school and its importance in the life of our church.

Incidentally, I am happy to respond to suggestions of sermon themes or texts. I can’t promise always to comply. Some texts aren’t very promising. For example I once heard an actor from that English group of TV comics called Monty Python’s Flying Circus, do a parody of a sermon on the text “Now Esau is a hairy man.” Not a very promising text to develop. And Paul could say “I hear there is gross immorality among you”, but it would be hazardous to preach on that. But there are plenty of important texts and themes to develop. And I am happy to consider suggestions.

And the Scripture and texts read in today’s lesson are certainly worthy of deep consideration, for they focus on the very heart of our religious heritage, our religious roots, the basic teaching that God is in history, that God is made flesh in Christ, that He is working to reconcile man to Himself and that we experience that redemptive spirit as we reach maturity in the Spirit of Christ. Now sermons can and do highlight this message, but insofar as the church develops the mature Christian character, it is probably do just as much to the week by week careful and dedicated instruction in the roots of our religion that is presented by the committed teachers of the Church School. And we are grateful to the careful study and presentation involved in the many classes offered in the Church School.

There is another reason for highlighting the work of the Church School. Next year marks the 200^th anniversary of what has been widely recognized as the beginning of the Sunday school movement in the modern world. Just 200 years ago an Englishman, a member of the church of England by the name of Robert Raikes, formed the first Sunday school to teach children the rudiments of reading so that they could learn the basic truth of religion firsthand. This was in Gloucester, England. And Robert Raikes was a newspaper publisher. Perhaps as some have suggested, he was worried about future readership figures. At any rate he recognized that many poor children working 12 hour days six days a week were growing up illiterate, uneducated, and unfamiliar with the Christian tradition. At his own expense he hired a meeting room, a teacher and invited the children of Gloucester to the first Sunday School. And from this beginning started the Sunday School movement which quickly spread over the Western world.

It is hard to imagine a time without Sunday School. It is hard to imagine that church leaders often opposed the movement. After all there was great opposition to the movement to translate the Bible into common languages so that the ordinary people could search the Scriptures for themselves. But Tyndale in the 16^th century was martyred for daring to translate the Bible into English. Bishops liked the authority of announcing and interpreting the scripture themselves without any risk of contrary interpretation. And there were plenty in the 18^th century who approved, of course, the reading of the Scripture by the better class of people, but feared that the attempt to educate the children of the poor might interfere with their acceptance of their lot. It is risky to read about freedom when one in an economic bondage.

Interestingly enough, the first Sunday Schools were dedicated to teaching reading and writing. They were specifically designed to educate those who couldn’t attend weekday schools. The first school designed for Christian education exclusively - and not just secular skills - was the 2nd Baptist Church of Baltimore in 1804. Soon, such schools were emerging in all the major cities and towns and after that Sunday Schools carried instruction wherever Americans lived. Missionaries and circuit riders who followed the march of the westward frontier founded Sunday Schools before churches. They became the nucleus for the churches. Education and evangelism developed together.

Soon the denominations developed materials to help lay people do a better job teaching. Interestingly enough, the earliest teachers were paid professionals. But as the Sunday school movement spread, and more and more lay people were involved, materials were provided to give those people something to teach in a clear form. To supply such literature, the American Baptist tract society was formed; this eventually became the Board of Educational Ministries. One wonders always about the nature, quality and value of these materials provided by the denomination. But judging by the titles of some of the earliest tracts, they have definitely improved. The life of John Bunyan sounds okay, but how about “Address to a Sinner”, “The Deathbed of a Medical Student” or “The Dreadful Superstition of the Hindus.”

But seriously, what should be the nature of the materials we use. What should be the goals of Christian education? I remember once asking a young woman in charge of the primary department at the famous Riverside Church in New York what their main goal was in teaching the children. “Oh dear,” she said, obviously distressed at being so pressed. “I guess what we really try to do first of all is to keep them in order and keep them from fighting.” A fundamental goal, I would agree - basically Christian - but surely we aspire to loftier aims. What are they?

We have all seen, I am sure, and appreciated that marvelous TV series, “Roots.” How important it is to see what we are in terms of our heritage, our roots! Many have been inspired to genealogical research by this to find their own familial roots. I would like to think that the fundamental goal of the Church School is to trace the roots, the basic beginnings, the major tenets of our religious tradition. I would like to think that the Church school provides the fundamental truths of our faith, the roots from which our Christian society and our particular religious tradition has grown. Our general education gives us the history of our intellectual tradition from the Greeks, to the Romans to the modern scientific age. But the religious roots must be sought elsewhere, in the Church school.

What are these roots? First of all, I would think, would be the basic conviction of the heroes of the Bible that there is a God who operates through the events of history, that what happens has a meaning, a purpose, a direction. That there is something we call the providence of God, that there is a God in Israel. We tend to forget that this is a Biblical discovery, a Biblical truth. There is not a sense of progressive history in the Greeks - nor in the earlier religions of the East - the Hebrew patriarchs first taught this and expressed it in those famous verses from Deuteronomy read in the Scripture - they bear repeating. The writer warns of forgetting how God saved the people from bondage in Egypt. [Quote versus 10 - 12. Chapter 6].

This view of God operating in history is the fundamental teaching of our faith. The prophets developed it, pointing out that even the harsher history they experienced was the work of God in order to overcome evils for a greater history to come. And a new age is projected where men shall beat their swords into pruning hooks, where they shall not learn war anymore, where they shall sit each man under his vine and his fig tree, and none shall make them afraid. A millennial hope? Perhaps. But it is still the one that encourages and directs us; in spite of the role of terror and hate in our world, it is the hope of the law of love that encourages us for the future - that the rule of love will be the law, the way that men will follow to bring about the new age.

God is moving in history for this end. This is the faith of the law and the prophets which seems to culminate in [Deuteronomy] Israel. But this is only a prelude to the Christian revelation that God was made flesh and dwelt among us, that He became man to reconcile man to God. What more profound expression of the basic Biblical truth that God is in history could there possibly be than the revelation that God himself took human form and dwelt among us showing us the way to the maturity of the spirit that Paul speaks of in the letter to the Ephesians. There is one body, one spirit, one God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in you all.

This is the truth we must keep teaching ourselves and our children. As the writer of Deuteronomy says, “These words shall be in thine heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently to thy children and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way.” Etc. It is the faith that enables us to view the future with the calm confidence of those who know that there is a God in Israel.

There are so many things woven together in the roots of our tradition, that many sermons cannot exhaust them. But there is one other root I would stress - because it is placed so prominently with the other, the faith that God operates in history. And that is the fundamental teaching that God covenants with His people the promise of a redeemed age, only on the presupposition that men follow His commandments of righteousness. And this, it seems to me, is something we must teach - not just our children, but ourselves.

It is not fashionable, popular to think that there are commandments, obligations, demands of righteousness laid upon us. We are much more ready to demand our rights and our freedom to feel good about ourselves, to gratify ourselves, to look out for number one, to do others before they do you. And yet, we must know, if we but look about us, the folly of living with no better direction to our lives than this. We may even scorn the work ethic as passé, but it is pitiful to see the shambles we make of our lives if we have no sense of meaningful purpose under God. We must know, if we but look about us, what happens, when we break the commandments - when we kill, when we commit adultery, when we covet what belongs to another, when we worship all kinds of false gods and idols and ideals.

There is a rule of God, there is a law of God and it obligates us all. This we must teach ourselves and our children. God is a God of love and redemption, but He demands righteousness - the rule of love in our own hearts. These are the root teachings we need so desperately to affirm today - Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soul and strength - and thy neighbor as thyself - “until we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfected, mature state, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine - - - but speaking the truth in love may grow up into Him in all things, which is the Lord, even Christ.”

These are the fundamental roots of our faith - the teaching of these roots is the function of our church school - we are grateful to those who carry out this function. But remember, this work, this dedication is in vain if we do not encourage our children and ourselves to attend, to learn our roots. Let us by our support, by our participation, pledge to nourish these roots of our faith.

1Discerning the Body

November 4, 1979

L. J. Start

First Baptist Kalamazoo

I Corinthians 12:27 “Now you are the body of Christ.”

Paul in writing to the Corinthians cites among the sufferings he has endured, his daily anxiety about the churches. And if any church gave him anxiety, it would certainly be the church at Corinth. A careful reading of his letters to the Corinthians indicates a whole series of problems, any one of which it would be enough to destroy any church, one would think. And yet Paul persists in his faith in the power of Christ to unite the people in the spirit of Christ. And so we find along with denunciations of their manifold sins and shortcomings the earliest statement we have on the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. And along with his complaint about the divisions in the church, his magnificent chapter on the meaning of love. Yes, things were bad, and Paul was severe with the people, but the whole tone of the book is Paul’s confidence in the power of the Spirit of Christ to redeem them. Just as Jesus could take simple fishermen and mold them into apostles, so the spirit of the risen Christ can shape the common clay of ordinary and sinful men into instruments of His spirit.

But there is no question about the fact that Corinth was Sin-City. No wonder Paul said he suffered anxiety about its condition. For centuries Corinth had been earning a reputation as a wicked place. Not what was so awful about the city?

Basically, the problem was its location. Corinth was located on the narrow isthmus that separated the northern and southern parts of Greece. All land traffic north or south had to pass through it. And almost all sea traffic east and west stopped at Corinth. To sail around the lower peninsula was a long and dangerous journey. The cape at the southern end, Cape Malea, was as frightening to ancient sailors as Cape Horn at the southern tip of South America was to modern sailors. The Greeks had a saying “Let him who sails around Malea first make his will.” And so most ships stopped at Corinth. There was no canal to sail through - but small boats were trundled overland on rollers, and larger ships were unloaded, and goods carried overland to be stowed on another ship on the other side. A 4 mile overland trip saved over 200 miles of voyage. Corinth was a seaport, then. And seaports are notoriously tough towns. But Corinth had two ports, and so was twice as tough and wicked. It was a crossroads for Greek and Barbarian (the Greek term for anyone who wasn’t Greek) and in Paul’s day for Jew and Gentile. There were several diverse and sometimes hostile groups and Paul’s church drew from all of them. Corinth was famous for its commercial prosperity, it’s sea trade. But she was notorious for debauchery. The very name Corinthian in Plato’s day meant immorality. In the heights of the city was the Temple of Aphrodite, the goddess of love. There were a thousand priestesses attached to the Temple who functioned as sacred prostitutes and plied their trade in the streets at night. The Greeks had a whole stock of jokes about going to Corinth on business. When Paul inveighed against a whole list of gross sins, he was not exaggerating.

Yet this is where Paul built a church. Not in Athens where the cultivated people lived. We know he preached there, but without success - there is no record of founding a church there. These were the Greeks who according to Paul found the preaching about a suffering God utter nonsense. Gods, by definition are non-suffering and immortal. Perhaps the Corinthians were closer to real suffering and so heard the new message.

But it was not easy to build a church from such materials as a reading of Paul’s letters shows. What was most distressing to Paul was not so much the debauchery and grosser sins - although he condemns this, of course, and he is particularly unhappy that the Lord’s Supper has been made an occasion for eating and drinking.

What really distressed Paul was the spirit of dissension, division, and opposition within the church. When one examines all of the particular problems he addresses, one can see that they are all examples of or causes for divisions in the church. First of all, there are those who are particularly committed to particular preachers or leaders. As Paul complains - you are all saying things like I am of Paul and I am of Apollos, and I am of Cephas and I of Christ. But is Christ divided? The fact of particular loyalties to particular leaders was destroying unified devotion to Christ.

He warns against defiling the body - saying that we are the temples of God and must keep them holy. The old leaven must be cleaned out and a new spirit entered of sincerity and truth. But all of his advice is aimed at unifying the church and overcoming dissension.

For example, there was the problem of neat. The butcher shops were really the backdoor of pagan temples. Meat sold was left over from pagan sacrifices. Now can a good Christian eat that? Paul’s answer is clear - pagan gods have no power so the meat is not defiled - but if eating it is going to cause serious rifts because of the conscience of others, it is better not to eat it. And then there was the question of women in church without covering their hair. There is no question about Paul’s conservative stand on this issue, and Paul can in no way be called a proponent of women’s rights - (Jesus was, though). But it is very clear that Paul is trying to bridge a serious split here, and the conservative solution was to reaffirm the traditional position that women are subject to men. But he ends his discussion with the insistence that both men and women are of God, and rebukes the man who stirs up this issue out of a spirit of contention. There is no place in the church for the deliberately contentious spirit.

The theme of Paul’s writing here is this. The church is a reflection of Christ - it cannot, it must not be divided. Paul asks “Is not the bread which we break a very sharing in the body of Christ? Just as the broken bread is one, so we, though we are many, are one body.” Paul explains to the people how he received from the Lord the account of the Last Supper, in which Jesus breaks the bread, saying “This is my body which is for you; do this that you may remember me.” Similarly, the cup - do this in remembrance of me. Then he warns about those who partake unworthily and bring judgment on themselves. It is easy to imagine Paul here is concerned with gross sins - to suggest one cannot partake if he is not pure. But the Lord’s Supper is for the help of sinners. No - what Paul is concerned about here is this: the unworthy one does not discern the body. He does not see that the communion service is celebrating, remembering, Christ - and he does not see, discern, that the church is that body of Christ.

This is why Paul explains in such detail how the church is like a body. It has many parts, but one spirit. It is an important and famous concept. The church is a living, organic entity, whose life is more than the sum of its parts. Its body is the body of Christ, and one spirit flows through it, ideally. As Plato pointed out - we do not say, “My finger has a pain; we say I have a pain in my finger.” There is an identity an I that gives unity to the body. The identity that gives unity to the church is Christ.

All the parts are important because they all reflect the spirit of Christ. Just as the self requires all the various parts of the body - the eye cannot say to the hand, I don’t need you - so the various members are all valuable parts of the body of Christ. And if one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it. It’s not just the finger that hurts, as Plato said. And if one member is glorified, says Paul, all share in the joy.

You are the body of Christ, says Paul, and each of you is a member of it. This is the great thought about the church. It is the embodiment of the Spirit of Christ. That is why the church is so much more important than any one of its members or all put together. It is the Spirit of Christ that gives the body life.

There are so many ways to express this spirit. And Paul lists several, showing the importance of each. There are first of all, apostles, the greatest figures in the church. They were the ones who had the closest contact with Jesus in the days of his flesh and the days of his risen power. There are the prophets - these are the preachers. They don’t so much foretell the future but rather tell forth clearly the message of the apostles. There are teachers who had to instruct the fundamental truths. There are helpers - all those who do the work of helping others, caring for the poor, the orphan, the widow and stranger. The church was from the beginning practical. Finally, Paul speaks of the administrators - the Greek word here means pilot or helmsman. It is the word in the famous scholastic honorary society M#5 - M48@F@N\V #4@h 5L$,DbZJZl - love of wisdom, the helmsman of life. There are those in the church whose job it is to steer the ship through shoals to harbor.

The church has all these members, all these functions, all these tasks - but through them all must be the Spirit of Christ. But the church, we of His church, are His body, if we but discern the body properly.

He has no hands but our hands

To do His work today;

He has no feet but our feet.

To lead to men in His way;

He has no voice but our voice

To tell men how He died

He has no help but our help

To lead them to His side.

That is why Paul tells us the more excellent way to express this spirit, the way of love. For God is love - He so loved the world that He gave His Son - and Christ is love - He gave Himself for us - and we, we as members of the Church of Christ, must unite in love - discern the body - see the church, ourselves, united as the body of Christ.

As we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, let us remember this - and unite in the love of Christ and the fellowship of His Spirit.