Practicing Politics, Keeping Faith | Rev. Adam Hamilton | Church of the Resurrection

2:47 and you'll find the scriptures that we just read a moment ago, and then you'll find a place to take notes and write down the things you'd like to remember and reflect upon on the backside. You'll find our daily scripture readings that tie back into today's message, and I'd like to encourage you to take the time to read the Bible on your own each day in the coming week. If you're online, you can download this, and you can read these scriptures on your own wherever you may be. So I want to begin by mentioning that this week we adopted a new family member at the Hamilton House. We have one dog right now, Maggie, and we have two cats. And Maggie is aging, and we thought, well, it would be good to get a little puppy to go along with her. So here's our new family member right here. We don't have a name for her yet. We think we might call her Belle. She's a Chug, which is a chihuahua and a pug mix, and she is the cutest thing. And you say, what does it have to do with your sermon, Pastor Adam? Absolutely nothing. Except this. We're getting ready to talk about religion and politics, and I thought if I showed you a puppy up front, it might soften your hearts a little bit, and you might not get mad, you know, in the middle of the sermon.

3:43 Now, there might actually be some connection between pets, dogs in particular, and politics. The American Academy of Veterinary Medicine did a little study to see which states have more dogs than cats, and which states have more cats than dogs. And then the Washington Post overlaid on top of the map the red map, blue map of politics. So here, I'll just do a little quiz with you. Who do you think, which states, which party tends to have more dogs than cats? Do you think it's Democrats or Republicans? Democrats have more dogs than cats? How many of you think Democrats? How many of you think Republicans? All right, well, how did you know? That is exactly right. Republicans tend to have more dogs than Democrats. The nine of the 10 states that voted for Romney in 2012 have more dogs than cats. And the upper northeast tends to be an area with more cats than dogs. Democrats didn't have more dogs or more cats. Republicans didn't have more dogs. I have two cats and two dogs. What does that tell you about my life? So now don't base too much on how many dogs you have as to what that says about your politics. But one of the things we have to acknowledge, you know, up front is the fact that there is some trepidation when we talk about religion and politics in church.

4:56 Those are the two topics that, you know, polite people are never to mention at the supper table. We don't get into, we're not supposed to get into conversations about that. And then when we bring them together at church, it feels a little uncomfortable. And part of the discomfort is we've seen it done poorly so many times, where there are religious people, you know, pastors or church leaders who begin telling their congregations how they should vote and who they should vote for. Just recently, I received a telephone call inviting me to an event in another state at the home of a billionaire who was inviting Christian leaders together to meet one of the particular political candidates. Now, I, of course, did not go to this gathering, but there were a number of pastors who did. And when they're wined and dined in the home of a billionaire to meet a political candidate, what's expected of them when they come back home? Right? It's expected that somehow, subtly, they're going to influence people towards that particular candidate. And that's not how we do things here at Church of the Resurrection. In addition to that, when we talk about political issues, there are many churches who will tell you, if you're a Christian, you're going to vote this way on this particular issue.

5:53 Now, I think that there probably are some of those issues that come up from time to time, but on those kind of issues, most people would already agree on that. When we talk about the issues we're going to talk about this month, and by the way, I let you decide what issues we were going to talk about this month. We did a survey last month. There were about 4,000 people who took the survey, and we asked you what were the most critical issues or the issues you were most interested in hearing about as we go into the election season, and the four top issues that you chose, immigration, radical Islam, healthcare, and gun control. Or guns, some people don't like the idea of talking about the topic as gun control, so guns. And so when we talk about those four topics, you set the agenda for the series, but here's what I know, having spent a great deal of time studying these issues already and will be doing more so in the next few weeks, is that these are complex issues, right? And I'm not gonna tell you, you're not gonna come away every week with Pastor Adam says, this is how I must vote, is for a candidate who believes exactly this way, because I think that there's some truth on both sides of these issues. We're going to try to understand in the coming weeks, how does scripture influence our concern about the issue as a whole, and then we're working at trying to find solutions to these problems on either side. So that's not the way we're going to approach this here at this church, but that is what many of us worry about as we start thinking about politics and religion. We're worried, what's this person going to say in the name of God about this thing that matters a lot to me? Now, I know that you're a little concerned about this because I've been getting emails and letters from some of you, as well as essays and other things that I should be reading. Some of you have told me this is what you should say when it comes to this particular topic. And you want to guess which of the topics I've gotten the most correspondence on? Guns. Yeah, guns is the one I've gotten the most correspondence on.

7:28 Have you noticed that all of these topics are things we're talking about almost every day in the news? And so somehow we're going to ask the question, what does our faith, how does our faith inform us as we're thinking about these important issues today? Now, where we stand today is we are a very polarized country. We've experienced hyper-partisanship. We know what it's like when it comes to trying to have political conversations, and we immediately, you know, we find our own blood pressure rising when other people are saying something we disagree with. We hear them saying that, and before they're even finished talking about it, we've already formulated our response to their arguments. We don't really listen very carefully anymore, but more than that, there's just a spirit around our partisanship in this country that leaves us deeply divided. I think of Abraham Lincoln's words during the Civil War, quoting Jesus, a house divided cannot stand, right? And when I think about the problems plaguing our country, there's plenty of things we could talk about, but in my mind, the most serious threat to America's future isn't radical Islam or health care reform or immigration. The most serious threat to America's future is the fact that we can't talk with each other or work together to find solutions that are for the common good.

8:30 And until we can do that, what we do is we're eating away or we're just chipping away at the foundations of our country when we are so deeply divided. And no one can doubt that we're deeply divided. The division has always been there. It's just gotten worse. In 1994, the Pew Center did a survey. They've done it every year since then, I believe. And in 1984, they asked people, what do you think about the other party? So if you're a Republican, what do you think about Democrats and vice versa? And what they found is that 17% of Republicans viewed Democrats very unfavorably. 16% of Democrats viewed Republicans very unfavorably. That was in 1994. Last year they asked the same question. 43% of Republicans viewed Democrats very unfavorably. 38% of Democrats viewed Republicans very unfavorably. I heard a news report this last week that, you know, it used to be people would be really concerned if their kids married someone of another religion. Do you know that today people are more concerned if their kids marry someone of the opposite political party than they are if they marry somebody of a different religion?

9:27 That's where we are today. That's what we see. And because of that, an increasing number of people are choosing to opt out of the two-party system and of course there's more than two parties, there's libertarians and a whole host of others, but an increasing number of people are saying, I am not a Republican or a Democrat, I'm an independent. And what we see today is that 43% last year, this is the highest on record, 43% of Americans identified as independents, politically independent, 30% as Democrats, 26% as Republicans, and 1% I guess didn't know what they were. So now what we know about this is that a large number of these are younger adults, so millennials largely are saying, I'm not either of these two things, I don't like how they play together, I'm not interested in being identified with one of these two parties. But a large number of the rest of us are also there too. The largest group in America identifying as independents, not identifying with one of those two parties. And yet even those independents lean one way or another. And when you count in which direction they lean, what you find is the American population is roughly equally divided.

10:23 And as we're roughly equally divided, then that leads us, of course, if our politics are more about who's going to win and who's going to get the victory, it leads us in a place of what we call gridlock. And that's where it seems like we are to many of us today. I think about this, and many people identify this hyper-partisanship with Congress. And Congress is easy to blame Congress for these kind of things. In the 1970s, it was not uncommon for Congress to have an approval rating in the 50% range. But last month, Congress' approval rating was 13%. 11%, I think, in November. They went up just a smidge in December. But when we take a look at that, obviously many of us look at Congress and we say, well, that's the problem. Now, I know a couple of Congress people pretty well, well enough to call on the phone and ask them questions, and one of those is Congressman Emanuel Cleaver on the Missouri side of the state line, a Democrat and a United Methodist pastor. The other one is Congressman Kevin Yoder, who is a Republican. He represents the third district, our district here where the Leawood campus is located, and a United Methodist, a member of this congregation, a Republican and Democrat, seeing things very differently, both United Methodist.

11:27 And this week, Congressman Cleaver is a little harder to get a hold of. I spoke with Congressman Yoder this week, and I asked him, I said, you know, many of us look at you all as the problem in Washington, D.C. and in Congress and the gridlock, and why can't you just get along? And he said, you know, Adam, I went to Congress when I was elected. I thought Congress was the problem, and I was going to go be a part of the solution. And he said, I got there, and I found that there are some congressmen who are intransigent, unwilling to work across the aisle. They're belligerent, and they're, you know, there are some of those, but not a lot. There's a lot of us who are really trying to figure out how to make things work. But he said, here's what I found once I got there is it was my constituents back home who wanted me to not give in, to not compromise, to not work across the aisle. He said, I get letters from people on a regular basis, phone calls, people telling me how disappointed they are in me if I do anything that sort of reaches across the aisle. And he said, I know that a lot of people are happy when we reach across the aisle. They just never send notes to say, way to go and thank you. The people we hear from are the people who are mad or upset that we're not fighting as hard as they think we should be for the particular side or the cause that they elected us to represent. And he said this is true across Congress, is we feel the sense that back home, if we give in on something and don't fight hard enough, we're going to end up paying the price in possibly not getting re-elected. Part of what struck me about this, he talked about the vitriolic, you know, emails and text messages he gets and social media messages, and you know, I get some of that stuff, but you know, he sent me a couple of these that he had received, one of which hoped that his wife and his child and his kids and he would die in the last year so that somebody else could take their place. I'm thinking, who sends a message like that, hoping that their congressperson is killed or dies by some tragic accident so that they can put somebody else in their place? I mean, this kind of conversation, most people wouldn't send those things, but he gets enough of them that you realize there are people out there who actually communicate about their politics in these kind of ways. Now, what leads us to this sort of vitriolic approach to politics? And let's just set aside that as a really gross extreme. But still, this sort of gridlocked, you know, unwillingness to listen, this characterization of people of the opposite party. And by the way, that study that looked at, you know, whether you viewed the other

13:36 party very unfavorably, a large number of the people who viewed Democrats or Republicans very unfavorably went on to say that they believe that the other party is an actual threat to the future of America. I mean, those are serious words. To say that my neighbor, who is a Democrat or is a Republican, is a threat to the future of America? But these are the kinds of things we're saying in polls. Now, when we think about this, you know, you ask the question, well, what's the cause of this? Why are we so ratcheted up about politics today in a way that we weren't, say, 30 or 40 or 50 years ago? And you know the standard answers that are given. Social media is one of those. you know radio talk radio with very strong opinions on talk radio television programming news even so that the news anymore we kind of characterize this station is over here and this station is over here on the political spectrum and and they all claim to be fair and balanced but really probably all of them bring a certain bias and then we know that we have a tendency to want to listen to people who tell us what we already believe right I mean I'm that way and you're that way too we tend to want to not hear the opposite view if I'm listening in on radio or tv I want to hear what I believe And that reaffirms what I believe.

14:43 And then part of what we recognize is that news anymore is really entertainment, right? News and talk radio, this is entertainment. This is a way of generating money for corporations. And so in doing that, you know, part of what's asked is, well, what does it take to get people to tune in? And then it's, you know, sensationalist headlines. It's a rhetoric that jazzes people up and increases the sort of blood pressure that people feel. And then it's three-minute news stories that are purporting to give you the whole answer to whatever the problem might be. I learned this not long ago, a few years ago now. The publisher that I work with, Abingdon Press, wanted me to go receive training for public relations and interviews. They said, you know, you're going to be called upon for radio interviews and TV interviews. We want to prepare you for that. And so I went to Chicago and met with a firm that's nationally known for their work in this. And as we were talking, the fellow who was training me said, okay, you just need to understand any news story that you're called upon to comment on or be a part of is going to be three minutes in length max.

15:42 That's a lot of time for a news story is three minutes. And in that three minutes, they're going to have two sides. And so you're going to have to be able to summarize in one minute your position. And you want to, ideally, if you want to get called back, you want to say it in a way that really sort of is, well, he didn't say poking your finger in the other person's eye, but it was sort of that way. You want to say it kind of strong and really... And I said, well, wait a minute. These issues that they might ask me about are really complex issues. You don't have time for the complexity. You've got to be able to say in one minute something that will really get the attention of people who are watching. And I had a chance to do a few of these interviews. And what I found is I never got called back because I was never very good at poking my finger in other people's eyes. A few of you would disagree with that. But this is how we inform ourselves today. We have 30-second sound bites on 140 characters in which we have a chance to express our opinions on complex issues. Now, of course, you know, Facebook and social media play some role in this, and we tend to share our opinions, which may not be fully formed, and it may be based upon just a little limited bit of information. We share those opinions because we feel really strongly about it, and we're ratcheted up by whatever we were listening to, and we do that on social media.

16:53 And when it comes to this on social media, what we don't often realize, there are things I might say on social media I'd never say to you face-to-face, because I'd be too embarrassed to say them to your face. It would feel uncomfortable, but I can say them on social media in a certain way. And so anymore, there's a lot of people who are pretty turned off by the political, we call them memes. That is like pictures with a quote that are posted on Facebook, and other people really get into it. But I saw this meme recently about people posting their politics. Political Facebook rants changed my mind, said nobody ever. Right? And that's how a lot of us feel when we see these. But then I saw the response to that, which was this next meme. Oh, I'm sorry, are my political posts bothering you? I just figured choosing the next leader of our country was worth a little discussion. By all means, show me another picture of your dinner. And then I saw one of these that was talking about, you know, if Dr. Martin Luther King were alive today, do you think he'd be posting pictures of his pets? Now, as somebody who posted a picture of my pet this week on Facebook, I think he might once in a while post a picture of his pets.

17:54 But here's what I'm certain of. He would be posting things that were important and that would matter. I just don't think he'd do it in a way that would poke people in the eye. I think he'd be trying to find a way to help people hear and listen and engage in meaningful conversations about things that really matter. And I think we've forgotten how to do that. When I teach pastors across the country about preaching on controversial or difficult topics, like we're going to do this next month, I usually tell them first, don't do this in your first 10 years of ministry in a local church. Wait until you've been there 10 years, and then you can do it. But, and I say that a little tongue-in-cheek, but the real question I ask them is this, is your intention in preaching on this to irritate people or to influence them? because it's really easy to irritate people. It takes a lot more work to influence people, to be able to enter into a meaningful conversation and influence people. I think back on how to win friends and influence people. You don't do it by poking them in the eye and calling them names. You do it by listening and showing respect to people and then sharing your opinions with respect and making sure that your opinions are carefully formed and then looking for the best common truth.

18:54 This is how we go about trying to influence people. Now, both sides do these things on a regular basis. I was watching one of the memes on social media that was going around in the last year. It was about one of the presidential candidates. And what it said, this was the quote it said. It showed the candidate's face, and then it gave the quote as though it was a direct quote from this person. And it even gave a date so that it looked like this was the date that they said this. And this person was quoted as saying, there is no place for gays or atheists in my America. And I thought, now, what candidate would actually say that, even if they believed it? You know, that doesn't make any sense. And it was a really inflammatory thing, and it spread like wildfire across the internet, across Facebook and other social media. And so I thought, well, I just want to find out, was that really true? And so I went on, and there's several websites you can go to to find out, was this really said? And I went to two or three of them, and I found that this person said nothing like that.

19:48 They went to the speech where this is quoted from, nothing like that was said in the actual speech. It was somebody made this up, and then sent it out on Facebook, and by the time it's gone through two or three people. Nobody remembers who said it to begin with, but there's millions and millions of people who've heard it and been ratcheted up against this particular candidate because of something like this. Now, you see, there's a word for that. The American justicism has a word for it. It's called slander. The scriptures talk about backbiting and gossip and truth-telling or telling lies and false witness about people, and all of these things are things that we as Christians have stacked hands on and said, hey, that's not right. That's not the way people should act, and yet somehow we feel like, and I realize I'm preaching to the choir, you probably don't do these things, but I'm thinking that, actually, I know that's not true, because I've seen a few of them that you've sent to me, but... But, you know, somehow we think we get a pass from practicing our faith because it's politics.

20:46 But politics are also about people. And in the end, we really have to ask the question, is this the way that we're going to conduct ourselves in politics? And if it is, we can count on the fact that we're going to get the same kind of results. You remember, of course, the essence of stupidity or insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results. If we want different results, we've got to do things differently in the future. and what I believe is that our Christian faith might have something to say to us about how we practice politics in the years to come. Now, it's not that we shouldn't share our opinions, of course. We should form our opinions carefully. We should examine them carefully. If you're going to speak about something, you should know something about it, so really digging in to try to understand it. But then once we do that, we should share our opinions with grace and humility and the kinds of things we just talked about. But here's one of the things I think we have to have, and when we think about humility in part on politics, it's recognizing that the other person who sees things differently may not be my, they're not my enemy. They have a different way of seeing things. They may actually, on these things that we're really deeply divided about as a country, they may actually have some valid reason for thinking the way they think. I might not agree with it, but if I could stand in their shoes, I might be able to better understand why they believed what they believed. Now, these four issues that we're going to talk about this month, I have spent, for the last couple of weeks, I've spent time reading on these, before I preach each of these sermons, I will have spent 25 to 40 hours reading about that particular issue we're going to talk about that weekend. Here's what I've learned, is none of them are simple. And in none of these issues does one side have all the answers and the other side has missed the boat. And in fact, there are important components on both sides of this that you would bring together to try to find a really good workable solution if we could actually work together. These are complex issues and no one has all of the right answers on these things.

22:32 This week I was speaking with a man named Mark Garzon. Mark was a family therapist, and then he moved into the area of mediation. And in the late 1990s, Congress actually called upon him to lead a series of retreats for the United States Congress, trying to bring Republicans and Democrats together to work together for the common good. So he did several of these. And then the United Nations called upon him to do this in Africa with various countries in Africa that were war-torn. And he's written a couple of books about the topic. He has a new one coming out called The Reunited States of America, and it's an excellent book. It doesn't come out until March, but I received a pre-release copy of it, and if I could, I'd buy you a copy, every one of you, and ask you to read it. It's that good. But I decided, you know, this week maybe I'd talk to him and ask him a few questions. So I called him in Colorado, and you'll have to listen carefully because this was an interview over the phone. But I asked him, what's wrong in American politics? You know, why are we the way we are? And he began talking about putting oil in an engine. And what happens if you don't put oil in the engine?

23:25 And then he described what the oil is in the engine of democracy. This is what he said. Take a listen. Why, then, is it so hard for us to understand that the Democrats and Republicans might each have something to offer us and that a healthy relationship between those two parties would make for a better country? and I think most of us understand that, we just sometimes forget it. I was thinking this week of how we characterize the Republican and Democratic Party and how they characterize themselves, so I went on the National Party page for each of the parties to try to read what they say about themselves and then to try to summarize that, and I don't have time to go into all of the things that are mentioned there, but I'll just summarize a few of the things that I read as I was listening.

24:21 And by the way, the way we characterize ourselves is also a way of characterizing the other person without saying it. So religious people do this. If you're a part of the Catholic Church, I mean, this was a coup in public relations, going back to 1054 A.D. In 1054 A.D., the Western Church claimed the name the Catholic Church. The word Catholic means universal. We are the universal church, so what are you if you're not Catholic? And then the Eastern Church claimed the name the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church means right worship, right glory, or right beliefs. So we are the Orthodox Church. What are all you people in the West? You're heretics. They didn't have to say it. By the name they chose, they were saying something about the other side. And so I was listening to how Republicans and Democrats characterize themselves, and Republicans, just a few things they would say, is we want smaller government, more individual freedom, without government regulation. That's okay.

25:13 What are you saying about Democrats? They want bigger government, less individual freedom, and more regulations. Now, if you're a Democrat, would you say that's what you believe in? Probably not. If you are a Democrat, you say about yourself that we care about the poor and the vulnerable, and we believe government needs to step in and help, and we believe that there have to be laws because people sometimes do the wrong thing. Now, that might imply that Republicans don't care about the poor or the vulnerable, don't believe there's a need for the rule of law, and don't believe government should be involved in these things at all. Well, Republicans will say, wait a minute, that's not who we are. We're people who care about the poor and the vulnerable. We just have different ways of thinking about how government's involved in accomplishing these things. You see, we have different ways of thinking about these solutions. And I was thinking about that when it came to these parties. And often we think about the parties and we're talking about winning and losing. We talk about these as though they're teams and they're in a battle pitched for victory. And I was thinking about wearing my Chiefs jersey today. And yesterday the Kansas City Chiefs won in the first postseason games in what, 22 years I think it was, since 1994. And you know, when you're talking about football, and if you want to take football and push that into the metaphor we want to use for politics, it's a disaster, I think. If you think about it, the Kansas City Chiefs, every player receives a check from the Kansas City Chiefs. Their job, what they get paid for, is to win. Your job is to win. You're to strategize and use the best tactics you have, have and do everything you can, and you get more money if you win the game, right? So the Chiefs, we're counting on the fact that they're working to win that game, and that's what we pay there.

26:42 Somebody pays them for it. We help pay for it by our advertising and all the, you know, paying for tickets and whatever. And the Houston Texans the same way, right? We don't want the Chiefs and the Texans to meet together and say, hey, how can we just make this a good game? Let's just play together and be friends, right? We don't want that. We want, you know, the Chiefs to win 30 to nothing.

27:04 But here's the thing. When it comes to Congress, they all are receiving paychecks from the same organization, right? And you're paying those paychecks. And they're all on the same team. This is where we miss out, because if it's about Republicans winning or Democrats winning, then in the process of doing that, it's about me getting the victory, and I've got to stop you from getting the victory, and I've got to stop every forward progress you try to make. I've got to stop it, because you're the opposing team, and I want to win. And when that happens, then whatever the opposing team proposes, any ideas that they have, this is the answer. No! Right. And so you want some more money for your programs? No! Yeah, and you want to try moving in this direction? No, no, no. Right. That's what politics begins to look like, and we call that gridlock, when we are unwilling to compromise in any way because our team has to win. The idea of winners and losers when it comes to politics doesn't serve us very well.

28:01 We are all on the same team, Republicans and Democrats. We have different ideas, and of course we're going to fight for our ideas, but in the end we're looking for how do we move us forward to accomplish some kind of solutions. At least that's how many of us see this process that we're involved in when we talk about politics. And Garzon used an interesting metaphor. He talked about the iPhone. And, you know, there were smartphones before the iPhone, but the iPhone fundamentally changed how smartphones work and what they look like. And he said, you know, at Apple Computer, there were teams of people, and they were vying for the best idea for how to make a smartphone. So there were multiple teams working at this, but their paychecks all came from Apple Computer. They were all working for the same vision. Come up with a phone that revolutionizes things. that puts a computer in people's hands. And so there were, in some sense, winners and losers when they had these debates. But once they were finished with the debate and somebody could show, hey, our idea works a little bit better than your idea, then the other team comes along and says, okay, let's work together now on this team to figure out how to perfect it and how to solve these kind of problems.

28:57 And that's how you come up with something that really changes the world. Not by having winners and losers and by the kind of debate that says it's all or nothing. And he suggested that's maybe what our American political system needs to move towards. Now, when I think about these differences, between Republicans and Democrats, I think about my wife and I, and LaVon and I are very different people. We think about spending money differently. We think about how we raise our kids differently. I'll confess to you, at least three times a week, we get really, really irritated with each other. And at least once a week, we raise our voices with each other. But here's the thing, whenever LaVon irritates me, I don't go on Facebook and say, my wife, LaVon Hamilton, is this horrible person because of, and I don't tell the whole world about that. I kind of keep that to ourselves. We're going to sit and talk about it. And, you know, we're going to work through it. And after 33 years, here's what I've learned. First of all, I've learned to say an awful lot, you know what, honey, you're right. I'm sorry about that.

29:51 But here's what I've learned, is that when we disagree about something, we come up with a better solution when we work together and we're committed to finding that solution and to compromising someone. There are things about LaVon that, though they irritate me, I think are some of the best things she brings to our marriage and help us, help me to be a better human being and a better Christian because she sees the world differently than I do. And that's how I think we need to see what we're doing in the area of politics. And as a congregation, you know, one of the ways in which we start breaking down the walls and building up bridges is by actually getting to know people of the other party and seeing them as human beings. That's one of the things that I think is the great potential at Church of the Resurrection. You can go to a lot of churches and 90% of the people are in one party and 10% in the other party. Here at Resurrection, I don't remember the numbers, but something like this from the survey you took last month, nearly 4,000 people filled it out. 30% of you lean more conservative, 30% of you lean more progressive, and 40% of you identify somewhere in the middle. And I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm thinking 60-40 split in the two political parties, and actually a large number of you who are independents in between those two. And that means that you're sitting in Bible study with people that you come to love as your brothers and sisters in Christ, and when you then begin to think of, hey, that person, they're a Democrat? You're not going to hate them because of that, because you love them. They're your brother or sister in Christ. And part of what's been discovered is if you can have people from different political parties or different persuasions break bread together and get to know one another as human beings, it changes things. It changes things.

31:19 This is part of the potential I think you hold, Church of the Resurrection, for changing the kind of conversations that we have here in America, at least in our city. I want to mention one of our members, our leaders, sent me a note this week, and I could tell he was a little anxious about the sermon series, and we kind of talked back and forth about it, and the last note I got from him was really interesting, and it gave a helpful metaphor. He said, you know, this is helpful to me because I think the way many of us have seen politics is I'm a warrior, and there's a battle going on, and I'm fighting for maybe the future of my country. I'm fighting for taking back my country or maybe holding on to my country, and he said part of this conversation we've had has helped me to see that maybe there's a different metaphor. You see, when both sides see themselves as warriors and there's a battle, then it's all about getting the other to surrender. But he said maybe a better metaphor is that we're ambassadors for our ideas. And if we're ambassadors for ideas, what ambassadors do is they meet together and they negotiate. They listen, they try to find something that's a win-win for both sides, as opposed to feeling like we've got to defeat you, as opposed to seeing you as my enemy, that I have got to win, I've got to have victory over. And I think he was right. Paul describes us that way in the scriptures. He says we are Christ's ambassadors. God makes his appeal through us. So that leads me to this final conclusion as to how our faith then connects with our politics. We've talked about the problems, what might be some of the solutions. Well, one of the first things we have to recognize is Jesus gives us one commandment that guides all of the future focus of Christian ethics. He says it's the second great commandment. The first one is to love God. The second one, as you know, is to love your neighbor as you love yourself.

32:57 And then he goes on to describe the neighbor as whoever it is who is in need, whoever needs your love and care. In illustrating this parable or this idea, he tells the parable of the Good Samaritan in which a Samaritan helps out a Jew. A Democrat helps out a Republican. A Republican helps out a Democrat. The other helps out the one. And in this, he's showing what love looks like. Somebody needs you and you stop and you help them. Now, I think most Republicans and Democrats would actually do that. It's just we've got to do that on a regular basis. This has got to be the way we approach things. We're called to love our neighbor. What does love look like? It doesn't look like the way we practice politics often today. It's not also a warm, fuzzy feeling. It's a way of acting with humility and treating people with respect and dignity. Jesus goes on to say that another way of summarizing his ethic, which summarizes the law and the prophets, is to do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. And what do we call that?

33:49 The golden rule, right? We all learned that when we were little children. And again, that applies as much to politics as to anything else to do unto others. And when Jesus said this, he was speaking about how the Jews should treat the Romans, who were literally their enemies with troops and weapons, but love your neighbor and your enemy meant to treat other people as you would have them treat you. Now, I think about a passage of Scripture we memorized last year. We did a sermon series about a year and a half ago called The Power of Words. And in that series, there was a Scripture that I gave you on a memory verse card, and I asked you to try to memorize it and every day to say it as you brush your teeth and then we would say it together and worship every weekend and this was the passage from Paul's letter to the Ephesians where the church was in great conflict and he says this, actually let's read it together because many of you probably still have it memorized let no evil talk come out of your mouth but only what is useful for building up as there is need that your words may give grace to those who hear can you imagine how politics would look differently if we all practiced that.

34:52 Let no evil, remember that word is putrid, it's like rotten, it's spoiling. Let no evil word or talk come out of your mouth, but only what's useful for building others up as there is need, that your words might give grace to those who hear. I think about Paul when he's talking, he's writing to the church at Corinth. You see, there was a lot of divisions in the early church, and in those divisions, there was great conflict in many of the churches, so almost every letter of the New Testament addresses conflict and how to resolve conflict. And in 1 Corinthians, This letter is a major theme of it is the conflict. It starts in chapter 1 and winds its way all the way through the divisions in the church. And you get to 1 Corinthians chapter 13. And Paul writes this chapter not for pastors to use at weddings in the future, though that's where you usually hear 1 Corinthians 13. He's talking about divisions among people. And this is what he says, the great love chapter. He says, If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

35:45 And if I have prophetic powers and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions and if I hand over my body so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing. So you can be right, but if you're not practicing love, you've missed the mark. But then he goes on to describe what love looks like. And here I just invite you to read it with me to think about this is what this kind of love, not a warm fuzzy feeling, but a Christian ethic looks like. Read it together with me. Love is patient. Love is kind. Love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way. It is not irritable or resentful. It does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. I find it interesting, Mark Garzon talks about the role of religion in a healthy society. And you may remember the word religion comes from two Latin words, a prefix, re, which means again, and ligio, from which the word ligament comes. A ligament is something that holds bones together, right? It holds them in tension, but it holds them together. And religion is something that is meant to hold people together.

37:08 And in our country, I think that might be the role we could play to hold people together if we're practicing this Christian ethic. So I was thinking about this. You know, when you're sitting in a conversation with people, and suddenly you hear somebody speak up and they say something, you know, very negative about somebody else, what might be your response? And maybe you don't say anything. Sometimes I just think it's not worth it. I'm just not going to say anything. But sometimes I say, you know, I appreciate where you're coming from, but I know people who are of that particular political party, and they're not like that. I mean, I know some people who are really wonderful who are like that, and it's amazing. One opposing comment like that that's very gently offered changes the tenor of the conversation after that. When you come to a particular issue and somebody's really strong, and, you know, I really appreciate your views on that, and I think there's a lot of truth to that. You know, I've heard somebody articulate something on the other side, and I think they also have some important views to share. Moves people to a place where they say, okay, maybe I don't have all of the answers. Maybe there's something there.

38:02 if we're willing to speak up. Or maybe we simply say to ourselves, I'm not going to be passing on the kind of caustic things people pass on. Or maybe silently in a private message, not on somebody's Facebook page that would embarrass them publicly. Hey, I saw your Facebook meme, but I'm wondering, you know, I know some people who might be hurt by that. I just wanted to mention that to you. Just, you know, I care about you. I just didn't want to see. I mean, there's ways that we can act as peacemakers, as part of the solution and not part of the problem. James 119. So today I'm going to give you another Scripture memory card. and I'm going to ask you to put this somewhere where you'll just keep it until after the elections in November. So maybe tape it to your mirror where you brush your teeth or in your car where you get in. Two very simple verses to memorize. One is Matthew 7, 12. You already know it. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And the other is from James 119, and I'd love for us to say it together. Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to grow angry. Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to grow angry.

38:59 I remind you that God gave you two ears and one mouth in direct proportion to how much God wants you to use those instruments. And an amazing thing happens when we stop and we listen to people, and we don't try to formulate our argument against what they have to say before we respond, and we respond half as much as we listen, and we're careful not to get angry, as we find that people come together, as opposed to building walls, we build bridges. And that's my hope and prayer for us as a congregation. John Wesley said this. just before his, well, at a period of time where there was great conflict in England, he says, though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike. May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion, without all doubt we may. I think we have a couple of choices. We have a choice to practice politics in the way we've been doing it for quite a long time now, and it ends up looking, this is a picture, we started out with a picture of a dog, let's end with another one.

39:58 I think that's what we can have in the future is more and more of this, more brutal, uglier, and more about winning the victory no matter what. Or we can decide that we're going to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. That we are going to let no evil talk come out of our mouths, but only what's useful for building others up as there is need, so that our words might give grace to those who hear. We might love our neighbor as we love ourselves, recognizing our neighbor is of the other political party. and that we might be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to grow angry. And if we do, I think we have a chance to be a part of the solution and not the problem. That's my hope for us. Would you bow in prayer with me? Oh God, you know how easily our hearts are inflamed over politics, over solutions to the problems that we face, how much we tend to listen to people who only share our own views and have a hard time listening to those of others.

40:57 How when we get in conversations over politics, we already know what we're going to say without really listening to what the other person has to say. Lord, you know this about us. You know that in this country we're deeply divided, and there are serious issues that are pressing upon us that require everyone to work together for the common good. Please help us. Help us to be light and salt in this election year. Help us, O Lord, to work together across aisles. Help us to love our neighbor. Help us, O Lord, to be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger. In Jesus' name.