Pastor's Message

"Prophesying Peace"
A Sermon by Dr. Ron Parker, Pastor
June 30, 2002 - Sixth Sunday after Pentecost
Jeremiah 28:5-9; Matthew 10:40-42

Jeremiah says, "As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of
that prophet comes true, then it will be known that the Lord has truly sent
a prophet."

In other words, anybody can prophesy gloom and destruction:

Hear the word of the Lord, there will be warfare and murder and lying
corporate executives. There will be people who destroy the environment for
their own gain. There will be drug abuse and abuse of children. There will
be earthquakes and famines and floods. There will be disease and death.

I can say all those things and they will come true. Does that make me a
prophet? Jeremiah is not so sure. Jeremiah listened to the prophets saying
all those things and realized that they were all so much a part of our world
that it didn't take much of a prophet to say them.

What would be more amazing, Jeremiah tells us, would be to prophesy peace
and be right about that.

Among the Old Testament prophets, prophesying is not merely predicting. The
prophet is not a passive observer. The prophet participates in the action
predicted. True prophesy is betting your life on your words.

So when an Enron executive predicts that Enron stock will go up while at the
same time selling his own Enron stock. That is not prophesy. It's lying
It is only prophesy if his action is part of his word.

Jeremiah says, "As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of
that prophet comes true, then it will be known that the Lord has truly sent
a prophet."

It's easy to bet our lives on continued war and famine and greed. It is
hard to bet our lives on the possibility of peace.

This week we will celebrate Independence Day. If there are any references
to peace in the speeches of our country's leaders, they will most likely
assert that we have peace because we have a strong military and can impose
our will on anyone who would disturb us. This, of course, is really betting
our life on the continuance of war as the primary power in our world. If
these speeches refer to God, they will most likely imply that God wants to
bless our country more than others. Therefore, we'll have peace.

But this is not really betting our life on the possibility of peace but on
the inevitability of war. Of course we do this because we don't really
believe that peace is possible. So why would anyone prophesy peace if it
involved betting your life on it? It's easier to prophesy war and
destruction. It's not as risky ... especially if you have the most powerful
weapons.

The Ninth Circuit Court has thrown us into an interesting theological
discussion this week. Most of my liberal friends agree that in fairness to
the diversity of this nation, we should take "under God" out of the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag. I've been thinking about it, and I'm not so
sure.

I can remember feeling uncomfortable when that phrase was added during the
Eisenhower administration. I was in the seventh grade in a one-room country
school back in Michigan. Robert Rice and I were the two seventh-graders.
Robert and his family were Jehovah's Witnesses. So when the whole school –
all 25 of us – stood every morning to say the pledge to the flag, Robert and
his sister were placed in the uncomfortable position of finding a way not to
participate while not looking too conspicuous. That's why in seventh grade,
I thought adding "under God" just excluded more people. And somehow it
still didn't include Robert.

So now we want to be more inclusive by taking it out again. My problem is
that I don't think I can say it with out "under God" in it. I want to be
truthful about were my ultimate allegiance lies.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands: one nation, under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all."

Notice that we don't say "one nation, blessed by God above all others." We
don't say "one nation over God." We say "one nation under God."

"Under God" means that my allegiance to the United States is not my final
allegiance. I do not pledge allegiance to a country that I believe is
blessed and approved of by God above all other nations.

So adding "under God" to the pledge to the flag does not elevate the United
States to the level of God, but states clearly that our allegiance to the
United States is subordinate to our allegiance to God. Maybe like "acts of
God" in my insurance policies, "under God" is the disclaimer in the Pledge
of Allegiance.

This is an important point, because people sometimes get mixed up about it.
In my first appointment I encountered a man who was a retired Navy
Commander. He was not very regular in his church attendance, but when he
did come, he always blessed me with his opinions, which he delivered as if
he were still commanding a ship. I was inexperienced in the ministry and so
did a lot of nodding and smiling. In the sanctuary of this little country
church there was an American flag on one side and a Christian flag on the
other. I had some opinions about the presence of these flags in the church,
but I knew enough to keep them to myself, for the first few months, at
least.

One Sunday after church Commander Ferris (even his wife called him
"commander") approached me at the door and informed me that the flags in the
sanctuary were displayed incorrectly. He said, "The place of honor is on
the speaker's right. So that is where the American flag should be."

I hesitated a moment because the flaw in his thinking was so obvious that I
thought I must have misunderstood. Then I said, "But if the place of honor
is on the speaker's right, wouldn't we put the Christian flag there."

He said, "Absolutely not. My church is always subordinate to my country."

Fortunately there was someone else in line waiting to greet me and there
wasn't time for my response, but in time, the differences in our
perspectives became clear enough to the Commander that he restricted his
ceremonial visits to Easter and Christmas. I guess he had other commitments
on Independence Day.

Now I wish I could ask the Commander what he thought "under God" meant in
the Pledge of Allegiance. I can guess.

Now more than one of you out there is asking, "But what about people who
don't believe in God?" Important point.

"Under God" came into the pledge of allegiance under Eisenhower, when such
questions were rarely asked. But it was also Eisenhower who said that it
didn't matter what your faith was as long as it was "deeply felt."

So I have another proposal. In the spirit of Eisenhower and in the name of
true diversity, let's leave a blank there in the pledge of allegiance and
let each person fill it with his or her own ultimate authority or "deeply
felt faith."

One nation, under Allah.... One nation, under the Great Spirit.... One nation,
under Jesus.... One nation, under Vishnu.... One nation, under the Dharma....
And if Commander Ferris really meant it he could say, "One nation, under
nothing else...." Whatever your faith calls for.

When we said the Pledge of Allegiance this way, we would know that our
commitment to the United States of America was our penultimate commitment,
always subject to a higher authority.

Where this would get especially interesting would be if people were really
honest about their ultimate commitments.

One nation, under Enron.... One nation, under oil.... One nation, under my
stock portfolio.... One nation, under my party.... One nation, under my
family.... One nation, under white people.... One nation, under shopping....
One nation, under the Giants....

In fact, this gives me another idea. What if we were all required to state,
under oath, what our ultimate commitments are, so that all of this could be
above board? Then we would know what we are dealing with. We would know
the conditions of our national covenant.

This excursus into the current debate is not entirely irrelevant to the
matter of prophesying peace.

I can't prophesy peace as long as my ultimate commitment is to something
less than peace for everyone – as long as it is peace for some at the
expense of others. That's why prophesying war is so much easier that
prophesying peace.

Most of us can barely imagine what changes we would make in our lives if we
prophesied peace and really meant it.

That's why true prophesy has to come from beyond our narrow vision. It is
only by living my life "under God" that I can prophesy peace. Otherwise I
have to fall back on my less-than-ultimate means of enforcement.

Living out my commitments to my country under God will also require me to
stand in opposition to some of my fellow citizens. Living under God will
surely not allow me to support those whose ultimate commitments have them
getting richer while the poor get poorer.

Living out my commitments to "liberty and justice for all" while at the same
time living finally "under God" requires that "all" mean more than all of
my people. The scope of liberty and justice needs to reach to all God's
creation.

Jeremiah's challenge to prophesy peace is a difficult one, but not one that
is beyond our reach if we are truly "under God."

Epworth United Methodist Church, Berkeley, CA

[Welcome | Home | Sermon Index | Top of Page]