Sermon
The
Lion and the Lamb
The
Rev. Jack D. Bryant
First
A shoot shall come out from the stump of
Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. The spirit of the Lord shall rest on him, the
spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit
of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.
His delight shall be in the fear of the Lord.
He shall not judge by what
his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; but with righteousness he shall
judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; he shall
strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he
shall kill the wicked. Righteousness
shall be the belt around his waist, and faithfulness the belt around his
loins. The wolf shall live with the
lamb, the leopard shall lie down the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling
together, and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall graze, their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned
child shall put its hand on the adder’s den.
They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountains; for the earth
will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.
Second
“We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the
British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in
recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first
importance for our two countries and for
We regard the agreement signed last night and the
Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never
to go to war with one another again. We
are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal
with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are
determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference,
and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."
Chamberlain read the above statement and
then added these words: “My good
friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has
returned from
Two weeks ago, I began a
series of sermons based on the invocation that I use at the beginning of our
worship service:
Love
is the spirit of this church and service is its law. This is our great covenant: to dwell together in peace, to seek the truth
in love and to help one another.
Today I want to talk about
the third part of that invocation, the words that challenge us “to dwell
together in peace.” But if we’re going
to do that we must first understand the meaning of the word “peace” – a word
that I believe is more complicated than is first evident. Several thoughts come to mind.
For example, I came of age
during the 1960’s when opposition to the War in
Churches, on the other hand,
are supposed to be places of peace.
Surely one can look to the church for a clear-cut understanding of the
word “peace.” Our Great Hall, after all,
is the sanctuary of our church. A sanctuary
is supposed to be a place of refuge, a place of peace – and not just this
church, but all churches, all synagogues, all places of worship. But that’s not always true, both historically
and in the present day. If you go to a
bookstore today and look through a collection of books on church craft, you
will discover a slew of recent titles dealing with anger, aggression, and
violence in churches. Titles such as Clergy Killers, Never Call Them Jerks, Antagonists
in the Church and Firestorm are
typical of these new books. I did a
quick search and came up with twenty recent titles of this kind – suggesting
that churches are anything but peaceful today – and that includes Unitarian
churches. In the current issue of
InterConnections, one of our national publications, the lead article is about
the problem of disruptive and abusive behavior in our congregations. That kind of behavior is not limited to
churches. It has become standard
operating procedure for our national political process.
And then there’s this
morning’s second reading – Neville Chamberlain’s statement upon his return from
“My
good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has
returned from
“Go home and get a nice
quiet sleep.” The world did not sleep
well. The history of what followed is a
reminder that even if the lion does lie down with the lamb, the lamb won’t get
much sleep.
I believe there is a common
thread in the events I have described. I
believe that common thread is confusion over the meaning of the word peace – a
confusion that I believe is caused by conflating peace with the absence of
conflict. I think of this every time I
talk to a couple about getting married or being partnered. I always ask them how they fight. And I always worry about the ones who claim
they don’t, who deny that they have conflicts.
I do not believe two people can be together very long without having
conflicts. The question is how they will
resolve their conflicts.
I believe it is common to
think of peace as the absence of conflict.
That was what Chamberlain thought.
And interestingly enough, he was a Unitarian, a good church going
Unitarian. But he could have been a
member of any church – because I believe it is in church that most of us come
to believe that peace is the absence of conflict. I suspect that’s because most people live
with conflict in the rest of their lives – at work and at home. I believe most people go to church seeking
peace, seeking a place where there won’t be conflict. The problem with that approach – as
Chamberlain discovered – is that peace is not the absence of conflict. But that’s what many people believe. Ironically, I believe people who strive to
have a conflict-free world will never have peace – and I think the best proof
of that is what happens in churches.
Rabbi Edwin Freidman, who
wrote extensively about the roots of conflicts in churches, identified the
desire for the absence of conflict at any price as the root cause of the lack
of peace in churches and synagogues. It
is a desire often manifested by a fervent desire for consensus – the resolution
of disputes not through the democratic process, but by everyone being able to
agree. Friedman concluded – and I quote
– “a perpetual concern for consensus leverages power to the extremists” –
because the extremists have no concern for peace and are willing to hold the
family, the church, the city, the nation, or the world as hostages to the
demand for agreement. A variation of
this is the desire to be pastoral, to be kind and considerate and thoughtful
and to feel the pain of others – and worst of all, yes worst of all – to take
on responsibility for the pain and discomfort of others. Friedman tells story after story of families,
churches and synagogues, and secular organizations in which individuals hold
people hostage by insisting, bullying, and demanding – almost invariably in the
name of the highest values of such organizations – that those around them take
responsibilities for their feelings.
Leaders of these groups – especially those from churches and synagogues
– would come to Friedman asking for advice on techniques and procedures they
could use to deal with the people holding their congregations hostage. This is how he describes his response to such
request for help.
“This
is not a matter of technique; it’s a matter of taking a stand, telling this
person he has to shape up or he cannot continue to remain a member of the
community.” And the church leaders would
respond, “But that’s not the Christian thing to do.”
And he concluded with this
parenthetical, “Synagogue leaders also tolerate abusers because it’s the
‘Christian’ thing to do.”
Most of us don’t want to be
involved in conflicts. I spent twenty plus years practicing law. Oftentimes it was my job to take the lead
where conflicts were concerned. There
was a part of me that wanted to leave that behind when I answered my call to
ministry. Surely, the ministry is the
one area that should be free from conflict.
But it’s not. Nothing about religion
is free from conflict.
This came as a surprise to
many of my fellow seminary students. Few
of them had a literal understanding of the bible. But I could see the shock on their faces as
they discovered just how contradictory and inconsistent the bible is, how it is
filled with conflicts. For many people,
there is a strong desire to believe there are no inconsistencies, no conflicts,
in the bible. The literal truth of the
bible, its perfection, its freedom from conflict gives the bible authority in
their minds. On the other hand, some
people see the bible’s conflicts and inconsistencies and conclude it has no authority,
no truth within its pages. Ironically,
both sides are hung-up on the issue of conflict, both sides actually agreeing
that there can be no truth without conflict.
And I believe both sides are wrong.
There is no scripture, nor
is there any work of science that is free from conflict and
inconsistencies. We don’t think that
about science, but the mathematician Goedel was able to prove that within any
formal system there are statements that are true that cannot be proved within
the bounds of the system. In other
words, just as the bible is inconsistent, any attempt to formulate a scientific
model that explains the entire world will necessarily fall short. I believe the path to peace with the bible
and with science or any other system or philosophy is
to confront the conflicts – not as reaction against them, but in order to
engage them and understand them.
Beginning in the early part
of the twentieth century, that is what Gandhi did as he worked to free
Martin Luther King’s story
is similar. Our country was split by
racism – and to some degree still is.
Martin Luther King – modeling himself after Gandhi – confronted the
evils of racism. He did so in order that
we might live in peace. And like Gandhi,
he rejected violence – but not conflict.
I think the best example of this is a story I read several years ago in
the New York Times. Dr. King was
in a southern town leading a series of demonstrations. The local sheriff’s department had taken the
usual position of resisting the demonstrators, but without the ugly incidents
that occurred in many locales. Dr. King
and the local organizers had scheduled a demonstration for a particular
day. When the date became public, the
local sheriff called and told Dr. King that the date that had been announced
was his wedding anniversary and his family had planned a celebration for he and his wife. Dr.
King talked to the local organizers and rescheduled the planned
demonstration. The sheriff and his wife
celebrated their wedding anniversary, and the demonstration took place a few
days later. The civil rights movement
was about confronting the misuse of power, about confronting injustice. It was also about demanding that people – all
people – should be treated with dignity and respect. I believe Dr. King’s response was a powerful
demonstration of the great goals of the civil rights movement. I think it exemplifies the true nature of
peace – in our families, in our churches, in our communities, in our nation,
and in the world. To live together in
peace is not to avoid conflict. It is
not for the lamb to lie down with the lion and close its eyes to who is next to
it. The lamb will be lunch, dinner and a bedtime snack for the lion if it is
not willing to confront the behavior of the
lion. To live together in peace is to
face our conflicts with others openly and honestly and to insist that disputes
be resolved in a just and loving manner – in the manner exemplified by Martin
Luther King.
And it is not just conflicts
with others we must face. A person must
also be willing to face the conflicts within his or her own heart – for the
lion and the lamb dwell within each of us.
It is in facing the conflicts and by responding to them, instead of
reacting to them, that we achieve peace.
Then – and only then – is it possible to live in peace with ourselves
and with others.
Love is the spirit of this
church and service is its law. And our
great covenant calls for us to live together in peace – not without conflict,
but in peace.
Amen.