Date: February 20, 2011
Scripture Lesson: Matthew 5: 38-48
Sermon: Risky Business
Pastor: Rev. Kim P. Wells
In 1978, Michael Hart, a scientist with advanced degrees in law, physics, and astronomy, published a book called the The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. The book was revised in 1992 to reflect events that had transpired in the intervening 14 years, but the top three most influential persons remained the same on Hart’s list. As we review a portion of Hart’s ranking, it is important to remember that his list reflects those he considers most influential, not necessarily the greatest.
So, the moment we’ve all been waiting for: Who is number one in Hart’s ranking? Hart starts his list with Muhammad who lived from 570 – 632 CE. Why Muhammad? Hart defends his choice noting that Muhammad was not only the founder of a major world religion, but also an extremely effective political leader. In terms of Islam, he developed the religion, outlined its moral and ethical tenets, established its religious practices, proselytized to gain adherents, and is personally responsible for the Quran, the holy scripture of Islam.
As a political leader, Muhammad led the Arab conquest, extending the Arab empire from India to Spain and into northern Africa, making it the largest empire known in human history at the time. So Hart believes that Muhammad is the most influential person in human history.
Second on Hart’s list is Isaac Newton, the scientist who lived from 1642 to 1727. Newton developed a unified system of laws with an enormous range of application that still governs science and mathematics today.
By now, you may be wondering, Where is Jesus of Nazareth on Hart’s list of the 100 most influential persons in history? Well, we are coming to that. Jesus is number three. Hart explains this ranking noting that Jesus is the inspiration for the most influential religion in history, but he did not actually found Christianity. Nor is he responsible for its scriptures, or its worship practices, or for proselytizing and gaining adherents to a new religion. Hart notes that much of this can be attributed to Paul. Jesus died with a relatively small group of followers. We don’t know much about his life from a historical standpoint. And he left no writings. While he was an ethical, spiritual leader, unlike Muhammad, he was not a political leader. Hart notes that Jesus is responsible for the basic ethical ideas of Christianity, its basic spiritual outlook, and its main ideas concerning human conduct. He cites what he considers Jesus’ most unique contribution as a spiritual leader: The teaching from the Sermon on the Mount that we heard this morning.
“You have heard it said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” Hart points out that these ideas were not a part of the Judaism of Jesus’ day, nor of most other religions. He goes on: “They are surely among the most remarkable and original ethical ideas ever presented. If they were widely followed, I would have had no hesitation in placing Jesus first in this book.”
Hart continues, “But the truth is that they are not widely followed. In fact, they are not generally accepted. Most Christians consider the injunction to “Love your enemy” as – at most – an ideal which might be realized in some perfect world, but one which is not a reasonable guide to conduct in the actual word we live in.” [Quotes and ideas related to Muhammad, Newton, and Jesus are from The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History by Michael Hart, 1992]
I am interested in this phrase, “a reasonable guide to conduct.” What is a reasonable guide to conduct? Love your enemy may not seem reasonable, but is it reasonable to perpetrate two wars, with enormous destruction and loss of life, in retaliation for one terrorist attack, heinous as it was? Is it reasonable to spend $1 trillion on those wars and kill an undetermined number of people, since we don’t seem to think it is important to keep accurate track of civilians killed? Is it reasonable to deprive people of needed health care, medication, social services, and education, to fund these wars?
We can extend this line of thinking: Is it reasonable to maintain an ever increasing population of incarcerated people, instead of making a significant investment in rehabilitation? Is it reasonable to punish people who have done wrong, and then prevent them from re-assimilating into society in a legitimate way? Is it reasonable to perpetrate violence to the earth, which sustains all life, citing immediate economic considerations?
This past week, we saw the money allocated for high speed rail, which would have made a significant contribution to needed mass transit in Florida, scuttled by our governor. Was that reasonable? Is it reasonable to keep driving cars powered by dwindling reserves of fossil fuel and build ever bigger and better freeways? Is that reasonable?
In the newspaper this past Thursday, in the business section, there was an article entitled, “CEOs not on Scott track.” Robert Rohrlack, CEO of the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce reminds us that roads, like rail, “do not pay for themselves either.” And Chris Steinocher, newly named CEO of the St.Petersburg Chamber of Commerce, says he understands the pressure on the governor to balance the budget and protect the economy from undue risk. But, regarding the high speed rail initiative, he asks, how much risk is there in Florida doing nothing? [St. Petersburg Times, 2/17/11]
When we look at the core, unique teaching of Jesus, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, as Hart notes, we consider this impractical and unreasonable. Too risky. And yet, how much risk is there in doing nothing – in ignoring this core, ethical standard? The cost has been beyond calculation in terms of lives lost, invention and technology devoted to armed defense instead of enhancement of human life, and in terms of resources devoted to violence and its aftermath, instead of human uplift and enhancement of quality of life, especially for those on the bottom. There is a cost to ignoring this teaching. So we are left wondering just how practical we have been with the path we have chosen, the path of conquering, subduing and punishing our enemies. Has it really been that reasonable and the cost justifiable?
In concluding his remarks on the influence of Jesus in the book The 100, Hart comments on the “Love your enemy” teaching of Jesus: “We do not normally practice it, do not expect others to practice it, and do not teach our children to practice it. Jesus’ most distinctive teaching, therefore, remains an intriguing but basically untried suggestion.”
So, Jesus remains third on Hart’s list of the 100 most influential persons in history not because of what he has done, but because of what his followers have not done. I know that love of enemy does seem reasonable or practical in the world as it is. I know that our society, our government, our world, will not adopt this as a guiding ethical principle in our lifetime or maybe ever. But we, as Christians, are called to be salt and light. The core teaching of Jesus and Christianity, Love your enemy, may not become dominant but it can still have great influence. The ethical standard of Jesus can have a much greater impact on the world if it is accepted and practiced by the people claiming to be the body of Christ. Yes, there may be great risk and sacrifice involved. But there is also an enormous risk and maybe even a greater cost to ignoring the heart of the teaching of Jesus: Love your enemies. Amen.
A reasonable effort has been made to appropriately cite materials referenced in this sermon. For additional information, please contact Lakewood United Church of Christ.
Lakewood United Church of Christ 