Early this week, after I’d spent time clearing ice dams from our roof and attempted to snow-blow in a vicious wind, I came upon this reel which encapsulates my feeling about winter pretty succinctly. 

(I tried to embed the video here, but it keeps messing everything else up... just go to this link and then come back to the sermon:
​ https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGBXI8uR_JO/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link)​

Luke 6:17-26 Jesus Teaches and Heals

He came down with them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea, Jerusalem, and the coast of Tyre and Sidon. They had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases; and those who were troubled with unclean spirits were cured. And all in the crowd were trying to touch him, for power came out from him and healed all of them.

Blessings and Woes
Then he looked up at his disciples and said: ‘Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
‘Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. ‘Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. ‘Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice on that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets.

‘But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. ‘Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. ‘Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep. ‘Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.

     The GI Bill was an extraordinary piece of legislation. After World War 1, many veterans had a hard time making ends meet. Some of this was because of a lack of decent jobs. Some of this was also due to service-related injuries. With those struggles in mind, President Roosevelt set himself to figuring out how to make things better for those serving in World War II, working with many members of Congress to come up with some kind benefits that veterans could access. Harry W. Colmery, former American Legion National Commander and Republican National Chairman, who wanted to extend benefits to all World War II veterans, male or female, would write a proposal that would become the first draft of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, what we usually call the GI Bill.

     The GI Bill established hospitals, made low-interest mortgages available, and granted stipends covering tuition and expenses for veterans attending college or trade schools. A lot of people I care about benefited from the GI Bill. I imagine that is true for many of you, too. But, I’ve learned that not everyone who should have had access to these benefits was able to access them. While the bill contained no language explicitly stating that Black veterans were excluded from the supports offered, racist people in places of power made sure that Black people would have a harder time making use of benefits promised them.

     A Congress member named John Rankin made sure that individual states would administer the funds. That meant that states with racist laws would be allowed to implement the GI Bill in racist ways. Other institutional roadblocks outside of Congress were put in place, too. Erin Blakemore details some of the issues in an article I’ll share when I share my sermon. Black GIs were far more likely to be given dishonorable discharges, making them ineligible for benefits. Also, because so many training and educational institutions were segregated, Black veterans who were eligible for benefits were unable to receive the same training and education as white veterans. Blackmore shares this quote from historian Hilary Herbold: “Though Congress granted all soldiers the same benefits theoretically, the segregationist principles of almost every institution of higher learning effectively disbarred a huge proportion of Black veterans from earning a college degree.”

     Many of the new neighborhoods being constructed after World War II were either officially segregated or banks would refuse to give mortgages to Black veterans or to provide mortgages in historically Black communities. Sometimes, when a veteran and their family could get the mortgage and move to their new home, their white neighbors would violently harass them. Black veterans also were held to much different standards than their white counterparts when they applied for a kind of unemployment available to veterans. They were far more likely to be denied coverage. Some postmasters wouldn’t even deliver the paperwork to apply to unemployment to Black veterans so that they could apply in the first place.

     On this Sunday when I am reading about Jesus’ sermon on a level place, these stories about unequal access to veterans’ benefits immediately came to mind. The Jesus we encounter in the book of Luke is one who is honest about the harm done to the poor and the hungry. And, he is clear that it is part of his mission to bring healing and love to those who had been abandoned in his time. He didn’t come to make nice with the richest guys in town, to secure their favor, and make his own life more comfortable. Instead, as Mary Hinkle Shore points out in her commentary on this text, he put himself on a level field with the sick, the troubled, and the desperate, and he tended to them.

     Our scripture for the day says that the power went out of him and he healed the people gathered around him.  And, then he preached to them. He offered a word that took into account their material needs. He said that the poor will inherit the kingdom of God. This idea runs counter to all theology that asserts that wealth is a sign of God’s blessing. Jesus asserted that God’s ultimate care was for the folks who need it the most: those who are poor now, those who are hungry now, those who mourn now. He spoke to the people who lived under Roman terror, who had neighbors gossip about their poverty, about their illness, about the spirits that lived in them and made it hard for them to survive in the world, and told those people that the persecution they were facing was not a sign that God had abandoned them. In fact, it was quite the opposite. And, ultimately God would relieve them from this suffering, too.

     If we think back to the reason why the GI Bill was created in the first place, it was to help one particular group of people who were suffering. Good leaders pay attention to people’s material conditions and, if a whole group of people is struggling, as veterans were after World War 1, a good leader will work to address that suffering. When we address the suffering of one group, it can have a ripple affect far beyond the initial interventions. The GI Bill helped to create the American middle class. For so many American families, the ability to buy a home and get a well-paying job meant that people could build wealth to pass along to their kids. This generational wealth would help their children and grandchildren have more stable lives. It took government action to even come close to levelling the playing field for most people.

     While Jesus stood level with those who suffered, he also had a word for those who weren’t. While the poor would find themselves blessed by God, woe to the rich. Sarah Heinrich argues in her commentary that this scripture contains an undercurrent of suspicion with wealth. Wealth is a distraction from the pursuit of God’s ways. There might even be an assumption that the only way to get rich is to exploit people. As I watch wealthy people in our current era work to gut consumer protection bureaus, undercut labor unions, dismantle child labor laws and worker safety laws, I’m pretty tempted to agree. Here and in multiple other places in Luke (chapters 16 and 31), Jesus will argue that wealth is a barrier to righteousness rather than a sign of it. I’m inclined to agree with Shore’s reading that these “woes”- woe to you who are rich, woe to you who are full, woe to you who laugh, woe to you who have a good reputation- are warnings. If what you have built is based on exploitation and keeping on the good side of wicked people in power, it will not last. Better to fight alongside those who struggle now than laugh while ignoring their pain.

     Giving white veterans government support to buy land and train for good-paying jobs while at the same time not ensuring that Black veterans had equal access to the same supports not only was deeply unfair, but it has also contributed to on-going inequality to this day. The shortcomings of this program are directly related to a group of people who wanted to maintain the right to exploit another group of people. Had one politician not been so invested in his own ill-gotten power and reputation, we could have had a veterans’ system designed as a level field for all veterans. Had we not had commanding officers, bankers, and educational institutions so invested in keeping the power white supremacy afforded them, we could have had a system that supported everyone who served to create a more stable future. Jesus healed all the people who came to see him. We left many of the veterans who were struggling behind.

     As Shore points out in her commentary, today’s reading is the final bookend of the portion of Luke that began with Jesus preaching in his home synagogue “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.” We go from the sermon at the synagogue that made everyone mad to his hard word to the wealthy. I think it is clear that Jesus had a particular concern for the well-being of those in need and a particular suspicion that pursuit of riches distracted people from God. We who would follow him ought to take these concerns to heart, not because suffering is good, but because Jesus cares deeply about those who suffer. In her commentary on this test, Heinrich says, “God is creating a realm, bringing it to life among us by that same power that emanated from Jesus, in which no one is hungry or mourning or poor or disregarded at the very same time that others are abundantly well-fed, rich, laughing, and respected.” We are not living in this realm just yet. But, we can come closer to it by tending to those whom Christ particularly loved, and by not being seduced into protecting our money and power. When we do that, as the example of the GI Bill shows, justice is incomplete at best, and unrealized at worst. May we Christians never forget the promises of Christ. May we build a level place where all can see him and be healed.

Resources consulted while writing this sermon:

​About the GI Bill:

• Background on the bill: https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/gi-bill
• Erin Blakemore's article: https://www.history.com/news/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans-benefits

Mary Hinkle Shore: https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/sixth-sunday-after-epiphany-3/commentary-on-luke-617-26-3

Sarah Heinrich: https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/sixth-sunday-after-epiphany-3/commentary-on-luke-617-26-2
​

     Paul Munsky wants to write his crush, preacher’s daughter and painter Aster Flores, a love letter. Paul Munsky also feels utterly incapable of doing so. He’s good at football and at cooking, but, less so at writing. Ellie Chu, on the other hand, is quite capable of writing. In fact, for a little extra cash, six to seven of her classmates regularly hire her to write their essays in school for them. Her keen high school English teacher even knows about it, but, when asked why she never turns Ellie in, the teacher says “And have to read the actual essays they'd write?” Ellie, who doesn’t fit in well in her rural Washington school and whose family needs the money, agrees to write a letter to Aster for Paul. So begins the 2020 film The Half of It, written and directed by Alice Wu.

     One letter becomes a correspondence, where Ellie, in Cyrano-de-Bergerac-fashion is able to have real and good conversations with Aster about music, art, and literature under Paul’s name. It turns out that Ellie is also interested in Aster, but, given Aster father’s homophobic religious stance, has never considered approaching her, especially given that Aster has also been dating a truly terrible popular boy. The film, which is coming of age film about dating, class, religion, living in small towns, and family relationships, unwinds in interesting ways that fit both the size of the town, the complexity of understanding your own identity in relationship to your parents’ hopes and expectations, the religious commitments of the characters, and the emotional weight that decisions made at the end of high school often carry.

     The revelatory moment when Aster realizes that Ellie has been her conversation partner and not Paul is a well-written surprise that I won’t totally spoil. I hope you’ll watch the film. But, I will share a few lines of it, because I imagine that they will be familiar. Aster is right in the middle of a very public, very uncomfortable encounter with her foolish boyfriend. Ellie and Paul both interrupt the encounter. Ellie speaks up from the back of the crowd with these words: “Love isn’t patient and kind and humble... love is... love is.... love is messy and horrible and selfish and... bold.” That’s quite a take on our scripture for the day, isn’t it?

     Ellie didn’t come up with the scripture out of nowhere. Even though she wasn’t a Christian, she played piano in Aster’s father’s church, so she heard sermons every week. And, another character had used this scripture mere moments before Ellie did. In fact, Ellie’s words are a response to how that character was using it. That character was far more interested in using scripture to bolster his reputation in town than actually using it to guide his behavior. In fact, he usually uses scripture to constrain other people’s futures, never his own actions. Ellie, in hopes of helping Aster make a choice about her future that feels authentic to her aspirations, turns the scripture on its head. The results are messy and heartfelt and likely not something the Apostle Paul would have wanted to have much to do with.

     To be fair, Paul the Apostle was much more wary of romantic entanglements than any teenager in this movie. Back in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul states that essentially, he thinks marriage is a distraction from faith in Christ, who is coming back very soon, and wishes everyone could remain celibate, as he was. But, he also says that those who aren’t spiritually strong enough for celibacy can get married without making Jesus sad. He describes marriages among Christians with the word “concession, not command.” It is good to remember that anyone who tells you it’s your Christian duty to get married and have children has probably forgotten this part of 1 Corinthians. Paul had all kinds of things he thought Christians had to do. Being married was not one of them.

     Paul does, however, believe that Christians are required to love. It’s just that Paul isn’t only concerned with romantic love. To be fair, the movie wasn’t either. It is also a wonderful portrait of familial love and love among friends. Paul was trying to help Christians develop an ethical center to guide their actions. The church in Corinth was a church in the midst of intense conflict. In times of conflict, Paul understood that you have to respond not simply out of the whims and passions of the moment. In order to not be buffeted about in rage and mistrust, a Christian must develop a faithful core and respond from that core. For Paul, that core is love.

     While Paul the teenager in the movie isn’t much of a writer, the Apostle Paul took great care in his writings for the various churches that he founded and ministered with. In her commentary on this text, Dr. Shively Smith notes that the discourse on love is set right between two parts of the letter where he talks about the kinds of spiritual gifts people might have within the Body of Christ. She says, “This body boasts many gifts and many stations unified under one banner. Yet, these many giftings and functions are not enough to sustain the community.” You can have all kinds of people who know how to do all kinds of things together. But, they can only survive and thrive as a community if they have an ethical foundation connecting them to each other when they eventually find themselves in conflict.

     The church in Corinth was a pretty diverse community in a vital city in the empire. Smith describes the members of the church in her commentary. Within one congregation, people who were currently married, people who had never married, and people who were widowed worshiped together. People of all genders and ages were part of the community. Most were converted Gentiles, but some people were Jewish and had been leaders in traditional synagogues. Most people were poor and some were enslaved. There were a few rich and powerful Romans in the church, too. These kinds of differences can make a community stronger. That’s what Paul was saying about “the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you.’”

     Having this many people with this many differences in life experiences can bring challenges, too. We know that. The church in Corinth had been having trouble finding usefulness and goodness in their differences. Paul wrote this letter to help them figure out how. First, he affirmed that having a community full of different kinds of people is good and makes a community stronger. Then, he said that they’d need to love each other enough to affirm the ways that they were different. The love would be the connective tissue in their Body of Christ.

     Christians shouldn’t try to get around loving each other by building communities that aren’t diverse, by the way. Christians in our country and around the world have a nasty habit of trying that again and again, usually when we have aligned the church too closely with governmental power. Remember, Paul was not a Roman politician in good standing with the local government. He was an annoyance who got arrested all the time. What carried him through the times when he was targeted by powerful people as well as the times when the people he called friends were fighting fiercely among each other and with him was his ethic of love.

     In a way, he and Ellie are both being quite honest about the messiness of human relationships. In a movie where she and teenager Paul had done a lot of wild and ill-advised things, it is fair to point out that seeking out romantic love does not mean you will never lie to people, act selfishly, or behave in ways that otherwise embarrass you. The impulse to connect with other people is messy. As is clear from the church in Corinth, someone can declare themselves to love Christ and go ahead and behave hatefully. It is not enough to say you love. It is necessary to behave lovingly. I think today’s reading is the Apostle Paul’s attempt to capture a full range of loving behaviors so that the Corinthians have some instructions to lean on when their love of Christ isn’t enough to guide them to treating each other well.

      What does it mean to love? Those who are patient, kind, not envious or rude are loving. Those who are not resentful or vengeful are loving. Those who aren’t delighted by getting away with something they shouldn’t be doing in the first place are loving. The gifts and skills we cultivate will not be enough on their own to keep us together. Love is what will complete our faith, allowing us to be one body. And, yes, we may still be in conflict sometimes. In fact, I guarantee that any group of humans will. But, any of us who call ourselves Christians must look to this ethic of love to guide us. Otherwise, we are noisy gongs. Let us act in the Love that will help us bear all things.

Resources consulted while writing this sermon:
The Half of It, written and directed by Alice Wu: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9683478/
Shively Smith: https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/narrative-lectionary/faith-hope-and-love/commentary-on-1-corinthians-131-13