Sermon Archive	Sermon Archive
Bad History - Great Story Christmas A sermon by Rev. Brian Kopke Commentary We have just a short story this morning. The few words about giving the people who have less than we have. Perhaps a story we although best is Clement Moore’s A Christmas Carol where Scrooge, the man whose very name means miserliness and uncaring, refuses to give money to the men who come into a shop asking for donations for charity. Scrooge told the men, that the poor should be either in the work houses or in Alm’s houses. He pays his taxes. Not only was he curt with them, but he never once gave a thought to sending Bob Crachit home with a gift for Christmas. Only after he is an encounter we in the three spirits revealed to him by his long the departed partner, Marly, did he change. What happened then tells us something about giving and charity in the early part of the 19th century, about 100 and 60 years ago. The men who were seeking donations represented an organization that was collecting money for the poor. It was not always so. There was a time when gets given to the poor were made face to face. It was a way for the giver to get a bit of satisfaction for the gift. They would see the gratitude in the faces of those who received the gifts. But something happened to stop, and least for the most part, that practice. Instead organizations collected money for the poor. If we look back in history it is not take much digging for us to realize at least some of the reasons why the practice of bringing food directly to the homes of the poor was stopped. Well there may have been a sense of right assist for the giver many times those received the gifts felt humiliated. They were on show. They knew they were expected to show their gratefulness. To avoid these games more impersonal systems were set up. At first, during the Christmas season, large dinners were set up for the poor in the center the city. Usually it was at some form of arena. The forward enter by one door. The rich would come in through another door. The poor with going to the center to sit down at tables where they would be fed. The wealthy would sit in bleachers or stands and watch the poor eat, often commenting on how hungry they seemed, ravenously they ate, and even registered amusement when some of the poor slipped bits of food into satchels or even pockets. Obviously this to lead to humiliation of theI remember one such meal poor. Written up in a book entitled the battle for Christmas. There they were the rich in the stance the poor in the center the arena. But in one far in with the children from the orphanages most of them News voice. Instead of feeding the kids first, or even along with the adults, there fed last. The result wall is, that these children became extremely playful when the first bits of food came to the table. They never seen so much food. There was so much that they could afford to throw some. And a great food fight ensued. Apparently it was much to the delight of the rich. It was great entertainment. Of course today we would think of the waste would think of the violence. This actually happened in Madison Square Garden in New York City the year it first opened. The next step was simply today neither rich access to watch the meal were even better to deliver food hamper’s two peoples homes. The deliveries would not be made by the rich but by much smaller group of people whose presence did not demand the type of groveling thank fullness that the poor often displayed before the rich. For the most part, giving to the poor today, does not require that the poor humiliate themselves in front of the wealthy. Instead we give to organizations which can help large numbers of poor and people down their lock. We insulate ourselves from the poor. Well there are some ways in which this is good, it also means that we support a society in which those who have don’t often come into contact with those who don’t have. And what ashamed is. Because each for allies could be enriched by swapping stories with people who have much less than we had. One has but to listen to the old songs those we got three to understand the richness we best. And so we give weekly to the park deal food center to the collections in this basket, the checks which many viewed give to the church monthly, and today we help bout those children in the city who might otherwise be cold by a covering arm in treaty with myths and heinous carts to us and jackets on the wire the pros across the front church. We do not see the people that we give these gets too. We’re not see the gratefulness that may be in the eyes of the children. We do not see the thankful list that may watch over the faces of the parents. We trust the snow suit fund, which is where it them in tree items go, to do its level best to deliver these goods with a will whose some good to deliver these two since cars admits will do some good. This type of giving removes the entertainment factor. This to the giving is done out of the ethical uncaring concern for those who have less than us in this society. How important it is persona assist parents to teacher children that some of what we have we must share with others. Indeed use the Unitarian Margate Fuller who said that if we can awaken to this principal to the heart of the young that what they have they must bistro, or this is strong part of our private lives. Public life would soon write itself and eventually nations could join in his celebration of what Christmas is really all about it is not giving it is not receiving it is about doing what is absolutely necessary to bring about peace on earth and goodwill amongst all. Perhaps the number one reason that we don’t have peace and don’t have goodwill is because of the unfair distribution of wealth around the quote. This doesn’t mean they should be no wealthy. But does mean that great amounts of wealth have been disproportionately collected and indeed corded at the expense of the poor. We remove the entertainment factor from giving the giving must be of the basis of a principal. And Frost that has to do with the weighted wealth is shared. So I invite you to rise and is saying together the song of the mid tree until such time is everyone OS to permit tour scarf for coat pair snow pants boots or never place at pair of a platform has done so that if you have its pair bits or two were scarf print toward place only myths of the treaty scars troops to everything else on the close line. Sermon Samuel Taylor Coleridge, wrote the following lines: "Those who began by loving Christianity more than truth, proceed to love their sect more than Christianity, and by loving themselves most of all." While these lines are by no means true of all Christians and may be true about some Unitarians, they do point to a part of the problem that makes a sermon like this morning’s necessary. In the two generations following the death of a simple Jewish peasant whose ideas were so socially radical and his sense of timing so sharp, as he protested the structures of the world in which he lived, that both Roman and Jewish authorities believed he had to be killed. In the end it was the Romans who executed criminals with crucifixion, not the Jews, who executed through stoning, who did the job. That ended a brilliant ministry where he told the expendables and untouchables of his day that they were children of the Jewish God like anyone else and were loved and accepted by him. It was a ministry in the villages, not the cities; it was a ministry whose power was given away to the poor, the meek, the sick, and the common labourers, not the village leaders or the Priests of the Temple; It was a ministry which left no buildings, no writings, and no icons, but it did sear an new way of thinking into the hearts and minds of those who listened. While the ministry died with the crucifixion, the beliefs carried on, particularly in the group led by his brother, James. But that group was too faithful to the ministry. It was left to interpreters like Peter and Paul to take the message and reshape it so that its power and hope could be used to support institutions. Only then did the Christian church begin. Coleridge was right, it was not the religion of Jesus that the early Christian church espoused, it was the religion about Jesus. They preyed upon the superstitions and fears of the day in building a religion of hope. They offered salvation through a risen Christ. The message was carefully crafted, but not crafted to market it, though the task of marketing the new religion was successful beyond the wildest hopes of its followers. What they believed went well beyond the teachings of that radical peasant. His words are best preserved in the Gospel of Thomas, a volume that never mad it into the polemics, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Scholars have worked hard to remove the editors’ comments from the synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. They have shown how writers made their material conform to Old Testament prophecies, not remembering history but historicizing prophecy. Thus the birth story and the resurrection and troublesome phrases like the "Son of Man." As Unitarians, we look to all religious sources for grains of truth. We also rely heavily on science and direct evidence, and reason to find truth. Truth, for us, is always with a small "t", not a capital "T". Truth is always subject to revision when new evidence is found. We seldom use faith as a proof of truth. Paul said that Faith was the evidence of things hoped for and the proof of things unseen. With such a definition, no other proof is needed. You just make up you mind that something is the truth, believe it, and in the words of John Luc Picard, you "Make it so." Because of our particular way of searching for truth, questing for truth over a lifetime, we often overlook our own faith - just as formative in the strengthening of our own beliefs as faith is in any tradition. It is a faith statement to say that we use reason over faith as proof of truth. Let us not forget that reason is as fallible as the human mind, and so is faith. Well, where dies this leave us. Unitarians generally do not believe in the resurrection, no one is raised from the dead. Therefore it is highly unlikely that Jesus was ever resurrected. It highly unlikely that he was removed from the cross at nightfall and brought to a tomb - that was the Jewish way of doing things, but he was executed by Romans who would have left his body on the cross by the side of the road for all to see and for the birds to eat until it fell to the ground and the job was finished by the dogs. This was the usual fate of the thousands of people crucified each month during holy times. It was a grim reminder for all to observe the law. We know of these customs from the writings of Philo and Josephus. With that as a bit of background we take a quick look at the story of the birth of this radical peasant. Those stories are only told in Matthew and Luke. In the context of Jesus’ later ministry, one must wonder why the stories are told at all. If we look at the birth stories of other notable people of the time we find striking similarities. Birth stories had a familiar ring to them. Whether the birth of Jesus, or John, or Plato, or others, there was a particularly Hellenic formula that stood out. The births were miracles. In Jesus case, the birth was made even more miraculous because Mary had never been with a human man, she remained a virgin. God was the father. Well, as we know, Greek gods were habitually cavorting with human women and producing half god offsprings. But we also have miraculous births in the ancient writings of the Old Testament where Sarah and Hannah are granted children though their husbands are supposedly infertile. The two traditions are joined by the biographers to lend weight and importance to this man, Jesus. There was no virgin birth. Enemies of Christianity in those early years, the pagan philosopher Celsus amongst them, said that the virgin birth was a cover up for Mary’s having slept with a roman soldier named Panthera. Thus Jesus was a bastard and the virgin birth story was a cover up for his beginnings. This is highly unlikely, especially since Panthera is so close to the Old Testament Greek name, Parthenos, a young woman who appears in Isaiah. The birth was foretold, as were many births of great people - announced beforehand. The model in Luke and Matthew follows closely, indeed, nearly to the word, the announcement in Isaiah, "The young woman is with child, and shall bear a son, and you shall call him Emmanuel." Ever heard those words before? Substitute ‘Jesus’ for ‘Emmanuel’ and you have the later versions. Joseph and Mary are said to have traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be enrolled in the time when Quirinius was Governor. There was no enrollment when Quirinius was governor, nor for many years either side of the supposed year of Jesus’ birth. The nearest enrollment was about seven years after Jesus’ birth, but it was ten years after Herod had died, and Herod was said to be king when Jesus was born. Furthermore, people did not travel to the city of their birth to be enrolled. It would have presented too much of a hardship and disruption to the economy to do so. These were poor people. Who lived hand to mouth. They were enrolled where they lived and worked. The enrollment was made for tax purposes by the Romans. So it is not likely that there was ever the rejection of Joseph and Mary at the Inn or the stable scene. Joseph was a skilled carpenter - all words describing him point to a skilled man, not just a simple construction worker. It is likely he had a simple home and was part of the community in Nazareth, which would have been the birthplace of Jesus, not Bethlehem. Bethlehem is used because it was the birthplace of David and Jesus was to be tied to that lineage. It was foretold in Micah, a contemporary of Isaiah, in the late eighth century B.C.E. It is not likely that angels appeared to announce the birth or that shepherds appeared to adore the child. The idea for angels came from Old Testament and Greek formulae for announcing important events. Besides the real possibility that there are no such things as angels, there is ample evidence for following old scripts here. Announcement and rejoicing at births is still followed as a matter of course today, though the forms have changed to announcement cards in the mail and cigars. And what about the wise men? Again it was part of a formulae. Great births were attended to by Kings and often with the added drama of an enemy who wanted to dot he child in. So the pagan kings from the east come to adore the child and present their gifts. Herod wants to kill the child because it presents a threat to his rule. After all the child shall become King of the Jews. Herod died four years before Jesus was born. What this means is that we do not really know when Jesus was born. It was some time between the closing years of Herod’s reign, 37 - 4 B.C.E. and the enrollment, 7-8 C.E., a twelve year span. When Herod died, three lower class men sought the kingship following the messianic and military models of the original Jewish Kings, Saul and David. Because these rebellions were brutally put down over a four year period by the roman legions, it is likely that Jesus was born just before they started and grew up amidst the intense social upheaval and sharp commentary that would have been made about society during those formative years for himself and Judea. So it is only a guess, but scholars from the Jesus Seminar estimate that Jesus was born shortly before Herod died. Since the longevity of the average Jewish male in those days was 29 years, and we can date Jesus death to somewhere between 26 and 36 C.E. during the reign of Pontius Pilate ad prefect of Judea, his age at death would have been slightly over that of the average male in those days - a wise old man, not a young man. I do not think we need to go any further. There is substantial and overwhelming evidence, direct and circumstantial, that the birth story of Jesus was made up in accordance with traditions of the time which sought to glorify and lend importance to figure written about, before actually telling their tale. The importance was given by making them part of older traditions, historicizing prophecy in the writings rather than remembering history. Now it may seem that I have pretty well dumped all over the old birth story. For any person who lives only in their head and never in the heart, I have gone far enough. But, folks, I grew up with the magic of that other story and I do not want to give it up. Do I have to let it all go in the face of reasonable truth? Let me suggest that the only person who has to do that is someone so stuck on details and so dogmatically anti-Christian that they are willing to let one of the greatest stories told to humankind go out the window for the sake of a narrower way of thinking and the comforts it may provide. Now that’s a heavy charge. But I will let you ponder its excesses as I move on. Stories are not meant to be true. The best stories have truths buried in them and also tap deeply into human longings and stir the soul. This story does that. The scene of Mary on the donkey, the story of the refusal at the inn, the birth in a stable with all its sweet and pungent smells, the animals seeming to understand that something important has taken place, the angels appearing to the shepherds and speaking of peace on earth and good will to all, Kings recognizing the holiness of humble birth, and deliverance from the evil of Herod - it is a great story and told in the right setting brings tears to the eyes, warmth to the breast and hope to the soul of billions of people throughout time. Christian faith may make it poignant in a different way, but it is none the less moving for Unitarians as well, agnostic, pagan, atheist, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim - all backgrounds can resonate with this story. When I listen to this story, I often have tears - "Peace on earth and good will toward all," are the words which move me most. They are my daily prayer, the end to which my life and ministry have been pointed, and end I shall not reach. Couple that with the birth of a child, the birth of any child, with its fragility, the love and caring of the parents, and I am hooked. Add the steamy breath of the animals in the stable, the odours of the barn and my childhood on the farm is drawn in. Since I raised sheep, the shepherds in the field are my people, and the angels, though fanciful, are not beyond my dreams. How some days I have even wished that angels or some sign would come and straighten out all of humankind from its folly. And the Kings bending before this child - the off spring of a humble carpenter and simple woman - My god, when has royalty ever celebrated their subjects over the Lords and masters whose support keeps them in power. I celebrate the humility and wisdom of the wise men. And Mary and Joseph - always loving, Mary made into an icon, Joseph forgotten as are many fathers - models for us all because each child deserves the acknowledged love of both parents. Why do I love this story - it digs deeply into my soul and evokes much that I have loved from my past . . . what more can any story do. While the details of this story are not true, the story is a good one and points to things of great worth for us to consider. In this Christmas season, let us remember, as our Christian relatives and friends visit, that we do not need to defend our beliefs, we can join them in a real celebration of this story, for its power has been, is, and will continue to be great. We celebrate its call for Peace on this earth, for good will to all, for the humility of Kings, the gentleness of the stable animals, for the generosity of an innkeeper, but most of all for the miracles found in every birth, for surely each night a child is born is a holy night.	What to expect on Sundays Religious Sources "Views From These Pews"