NOTE: I am putting my weekly sermons on the church website. It will be on for two weeks (usually posted on Friday) and then placed in the Archives area by date. You can download in a matter of seconds.

Let me know what you think. The church Email is: SLUMC@att.net, Phone: 480.895.8766

Sermon: "Words of Engagement"
Scripture: Esther 7:1-6 and 9,10
Reverend Gerber
In a demented and demon-haunted society, our Lord is at work to deliver us from destruction - provided we wisely and courageously do our part to engage the world around us. But what are the rules?

The FBI has them, as well as the U.S. military and NATO.

Janet Reno and the INS had them when they grabbed Elian Gonzalez in a pre-dawn raid on April 22, 2000.

Rules of engagement (ROE).

Fathers have them for their teenage daughters.

Here's a few of the highlights of one father's "Application for Permission to Date My Daughter":

After asking for standard information like name, date of birth, IQ, GPA and Boy Scout rank, the application then asks,

o Do you own a van? YES/NO

o Do you own a truck with oversized tires? YES/NO

o Do you own a waterbed? YES/NO

o Do you have an earring, nose ring or belly-button ring? YES/NO

o Do you own a pickup with a mattress in the back? YES/NO

o Do you have a tattoo? YES/NO

The application then notes: If YES to any of the above, discontinue application and leave the premises immediately.

Other items on the application include:

o In 50 words or less, what does LATE mean to you?

o In 50 words of less, what does DON'T TOUCH MY DAUGHTER mean to you?

o In 25 words or less, what does ABSTINENCE mean to you?

After completing the application, the applicant affirms that the information provided is true under penalty of death, dismemberment and torture. The fine print at the bottom of the application notes that the applicant should allow four to six years for processing. Rejected applicants will be notified by two gentlemen wearing white ties and carrying violin cases.

Rules of engagement. They're a part of the cultural consciousness since the Waco fiasco. Samuel L. Jackson starred in Rules of Engagement last spring, a movie that explored the problems of calming a crowd in Yemen.

Rules of engagement are ground rules for responding to threats and intimidation. They're specific procedures that provide guidance on when and how to deal with extreme situations.

Esther certainly had no clear vision of the outcome when she ventured into the court of the king. She and her cousin Mordecai were aliens in a strange land - Jews living in the Persian empire in the fifth century B.C. - but they did not let their outsider status prevent them from engaging the great powers of the empire. But not without developing a set of ROE. By doing so, they ensured that the architect of the anti-Semitic plot - a Persian official named Haman - ended up swinging from the same gallows that had been erected for Mordecai (7:1-6, 9-10).

And what are these rules of engagement? There is no mention here of Judeo-Christian values such as kindness, mercy and forgiveness. No reference to the God of Israel, although the Persian king is mentioned 190 times. Missing entirely from Esther is mention of such basic religious practices and institutions as the Law, covenant, dietary regulations or the city of Jerusalem.

Yet the rules of engagement emerge quickly. Esther is decisive. First, she calls for a fast (4:16). They will do nothing until they have sought divine guidance.

Second, she and Mordecai agree that the time must be right. There is no indication that before this emergency, they sought to challenge an essentially godless culture as an ethnic and religious minority in Persia. When conditions changed, however, Mordecai argues that Esther had arrived at the court of the king "for just such a time as this" (4:14). If she does not act now, all will be lost.

Third, a plan must be devised. They invoke the rules of collaboration. There will be no loose cannons in this covert operation. Everyone must be on the same page and acting in concert one with the other.

Fourth, they must consider - and take - the risk. What Esther proposed was against the law. Yet, she said, "If I perish, I perish" (4:16).

All of which brings us to the question of how religious people should function as "resident aliens" in multicultural, pluralistic secular ethos which is uninformed and often hostile to religious values. We are challenged to take a global view and consider how the congregation should initiate engagement with secular powers around the world. Should the religious community be making political pronouncements during this season of high political activity? Should candidates be endorsed? Should propositions be favored? Should the religious people get behind ballot measures? Should we be supporting liberation movements abroad and environmental movements at home? Some say we should have rules of engagement (ROE)... but others say we should develop rules of withdrawal (ROW).

It's a question of ROE v. ROW.

"It is hard to see why anyone would think that religion is a cure for the world's problems," asserts Steven Weinburg in the Atlantic Monthly. "People have been at each other's throats over differences in religion throughout history, a sad story that continues today in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, the Middle East, Sudan and India."

The man's got a point. Ed Dobson, a pastor in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and one of the founders of the Moral Majority, understands the problem. In a departure from the now defunct Moral Majority's original rules of engagement, he now will say nothing from the pulpit about politics, arguing that political involvement hinders his role as a pastor.

Dobson lays out new rules: (1) We are to pray for political leaders. (2) We are to preach the moral absolutes of the Bible. And (3), we are to exercise our rights as citizens. It's a call to pray, preach and exercise our rights. We can probably do more good in this world by focusing on these three than by pouring time, money and energy into a potpourri of political activities.

Not all people of religion agree., and especially not all Christians. Clashes of conscience abound in religion and within each religious sect; one person's vendetta is another person's values. If the church or synagogue, or mosque doesn't stand up for something, it will fall for anything. For Christians, we understand that Jesus, was frequently an in-your-face activist. I am sure that the Jewish religion can identify with some persons in their history who also were "in your face activists."

The movie Insider told the story of how one man stood up to the tobacco industry. The movie Erin Brockovich recounted the tale of one woman who took on powerful Pacific Gas & Electric. Clearly, the church, or synagogue must likewise be willing to critique the culture. But Christians or those of the Jewish faith, are going to disagree on many issues for which there appears to be no clear scriptural guidance.

We have become so comfortable testing each other's theological DNA, that we've now taken to staining each other's political DNA to weed out the bad gene Christians from the good gene Christians in a new game of genetic gee-wizardry. I presume that this might also be the fate of the Jewish community. On such grounds, we hesitate even to dialogue with one another unless equipped with a theological vaccine to protect us from some verboten übervirus which might pock our faces with - gasp! - liberalism or evangelicalism. We are less inclined today than yesterday to separate from each other on theological grounds as we are on political grounds.

It would be significantly easier for the people of religion to fire off a few rounds in the culture wars if the enemy were writ large on the cultural/political tableau. Show us a Haman threatening our very lives, and Haman will face a unified body ready to take up arms. The devil in red we can recognize, although even in some cases (Hitler, bin Laden, Sadam Hussien racism, apartheid come to mind) the record is spotty.

But when the issues are the election of the president of the US, or handgun control, or welfare reform, or prayer in public schools, it is harder for the church to decide whether to have ROE or ROW. Trying to equate spirituality with certain political positions is like trying to pin the tail on a donkey - that isn't there.

We come back to Esther and Mordecai. They sought divine guidance through prayer. They addressed the issue of timing. They conceived a plan. They considered the risk and took action.

Should the religious community engage or withdraw? Should we have ROE or ROW

Yes and yes.

Let me know what you think. The church Email is: SLUMC@att.net, Phone: 480.895.8766