About Calvary

Education

Events

Fellowship

Links 

Music

People

Sermons

Service

Worship

Home

The Rev. Christopher Brdlik
November 26, 2006 - The Last Sunday after Pentecost

It seems as if you can’t call a business these days without hearing this phone menu: “To continue in English, press 1. Por español, dos.” Does that irritate you? Or have you pretty much grown accustomed to it? Globalization of the world’s peoples and cultures is all around us, sometimes creating conflict. The issue becomes more ominous when it concerns religions. The newspapers are full of these stories. Just last week six Muslim holy men were kicked off a plane in Minneapolis. They were returning to Phoenix from an annual convention of North American Islamic clergy in the Twin Cities. As they waited in the gate area, several of them said their evening prayers, I guess on the floor facing Mecca. This apparently disturbed another passenger who wrote a note to the flight attendant. After refusing to deplane voluntarily, they were led off the aircraft in handcuffs. 

In England a member of Parliament — a former cabinet minister — has said he will refuse to meet with any constituent who insists on wearing a burkah, the full garment for Muslim women including face covering. He says he needs to see someone face to face in order to communicate. Also in England, a young Muslim teacher has been fired from her position for insisting on covering her face. The school maintained children could not learn from her because her voice was muffled — and her appearance might even be frightening to them. The woman declared this was a case of religious prejudice, though she had not worn her face covering for her employment interview. France passed a law declaring no religious symbols may be worn to school — not just Muslim head coverings, but crosses, crucifixes, and Stars of David as well. In Denmark a newspaper published cartoons that depict, even insult, the prophet Mohammed. Other newspaper editors across Europe, declaring freedom of press expression, reprinted the cartoons. Violent demonstrations occurred as a result. 

These examples of the interface between world religions and cultures point up the social difficulties we will continue to experience in this century of globalization. The basic truth may be clearly stated: We are all going to have to learn how to get along better with people we don’t know, whose customs we know less. That foundational wisdom is no less true for being pretty obvious. 

But let me make a couple of additional observations about the interface of religions, observations that lead to an extra bit of wisdom gleaned from today’s scripture lessons. And let me say first of all it’s no surprise to me most of these examples come from Europe rather than the United States. America remains a nation much more tolerant and appreciative toward religion than Europe, which is far more secularized. More than 95% of Americans say they believe in God or a higher power. About 35% declare they attend church or worship frequently. These figures have remained relatively constant since the 1930’s, when George Gallup first started polling on them. Similar questions asked in Europe receive far lower responses. Americans also have a greater sense of religion being an important part of our history and culture — and that includes a variety of religions. In some sense we know we were founded on religious liberty, and we have enshrined that value in our constitution. A constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion is not the norm in much of Europe. Religions of any and all kinds, therefore, find a congenial home on American soil. It hasn’t always been easy, but we’ve grown to accommodate — and even appreciate — varieties of religious experience. That’s why, in reporting about the cartoons of Mohammed, American papers did not reprint the actual cartoons. They knew they were offensive, and our custom is to avoid religious offense. 

Another point about the interface of religions: Common sense goes a long way. This may be a variation on the old truth, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”  But I think there’s more to it than that. It’s common sense that the state has a need for an accurate photo ID on a driver’s license — one that shows the face, not a slit in a head covering. The same is true for a business requiring identification to accept or cash a check. Many states have common sense laws that restrict wearing masks in public places for good reasons like prevention of crime (with obvious exceptions for Halloween). I think common sense applies to the school teacher as well — clearly her job performance would be extremely limited if she insisted on covering her face. Even a veil doesn’t seem right for a classroom. 

Now I wouldn’t want to go too far down a road that allowed government laws or secular courts to decide on religious dogma — what particular doctrine was orthodox, what was heresy. But it’s a common sense truth that face-covering of women is not a requirement of the Koran or of Islam. It is a heterodox custom, a pre-Islamic Arabic tribal tradition that has in some places been layered on to the religion. Common sense points out not all Muslims believe women should be totally covered. What the religion generally requires is modesty in dress, a head scarf, perhaps, not full face covering, but modesty — a value that actually we Westerners could learn from. To be honest, modesty makes common sense. It’s a lesson Islam offers to us. 

Finally, let me make a point about the ethos of religion, the perspectives that religions can inflame or inspire in the souls of human believers. Today’s readings include two lessons that are among the Last Words or final testimonies of King David and Jesus Christ. Compare and contrast the readings from 2 Samuel (23:1-7) and from the Gospel of John (18:33-37). Look for the ethos, and feel the perspective. David speaks rightly of the glory of God and thanks God for exalting him with blessings and with the presence of the Almighty One throughout David’s life and reign as king. But his perspective never grows beyond imperialism. In David’s view, God can play favorites and choose winners. More to the point: There are losers, too. Those David declares “godless” are like “thorns thrown away,” they are untouchable, “consumed in fire on the spot.” And the implication is, God has done this to them. The final thoughts of David, King of Israel, are of his personal vindication and the extinction of his enemies. This is one kind of religion, a passion that enflames souls and grants them justification for intolerance and conceit. In extreme cases this religious ethos leads to violence in the name of God. 

Contrast that now with the final testimony of Jesus in his trial before Pilate. “My kingdom is not of this world,” said the Christ. His vision transcended earthly politics and conflict by reminding us God is always more than human wants or ego needs. The whole message of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection was anti-imperialism. He pointedly refused to take on political power as everyone expected him to, and he never condemned those who opposed him, nor did he curse them, or consign them to fire. His kingdom is not of this world, but is a kingdom of truth. He defined truth’s values as love of neighbor, forgiveness of sinners, and honoring God. The perspective of this religious ethos gives a much different approach in the interface between religions than the view of, say, someone like David. Dialogue would be important here. Respect and acceptance are important — going far beyond mere tolerance. 

This is a view that can safely, honestly, and peacefully carry us forward into the 21^st century, a time of globalization. My friend, Dr. Levant Koch, who led my interfaith tour of Turkey last June, has a favorite quote: “Love is the essence of existence.” That’s the perspective we need in the interface between religions. Love is the essence. Love is the existence. Love may be the only future.

© copyright 2006, Christopher Brdlik

Back to Sermons