SPEAKING WITH INTEGRITY

Matthew 5:33-37a

Rev. Paul Wrightman  ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​​​  ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​​​ 9/25/22

WE CONTINUE OUR STUDY OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.

IN THE TIME OF JESUS THERE WERE TWO MAJOR PROBLEMS

CONNECTED WITH THE SWEARING OF OATHS.

THE FIRST WAS WHAT COULD BE CALLED​​ FRIVOLOUS​​ SWEARING​​ –

TAKING AN OATH WHEN NO OATH WAS NECESSARY.

IN JESUS’ TIME IT HAD BECOME FAR TOO COMMON A CUSTOM

TO INTRODUCE A STATEMENT​​ 

BY SAYING “BY MY LIFE,” OR “BY MY HEAD,”​​ 

OR “MAY I NEVER SEE THE COMFORT OF ISRAEL IF. . .”

THE SECOND, AND MORE SIGNIFICANT, PROBLEM CONNECTED​​ 

WITH THE TAKING OF OATHS COULD BE CALLED​​ EVASIVE​​ SWEARING.

MANY OF THE JEWISH LEADERS AND SO-CALLED “UPPER-CRUST”

AT THE TIME OF JESUS – ABOUT FIVE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION –

PRACTICED EVASIVE SWEARING, OR EVASIVE OATH-TAKING,

AS A MEANS TO FURTHER CHEAT THE POORER NINETY-FIVE PERCENT

OUT OF WHAT LITTLE THEY HAD.

BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE SHOULD NOTE​​ 

THAT JESUS’ CONFLICT WITH THE SCRIBES, PHARISEES, AND PRIESTS –

A CONFLICT WHICH TAKES UP A LOT OF SPACE IN THE GOSPELS –

IS​​ NOT​​ A CONFLICT WITH JUDAISM AS A​​ WHOLE,

BUT A CONFLICT WITH THE​​ DISTORTED​​ FORM OF JUSAISM

BEING TAUGHT AND PRACTICED BY THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS

OF THE DAY.

THESE RAPACIOUS LEADERS DIVIDED OATHS INTO​​ TWO​​ CLASSES,

THOSE WHICH​​ WERE​​ ABSOLUTELY BINDING,

AND THOSE WHICH WERE​​ NOT.

ANY OATH WHICH CONTAINED​​ THE​​ NAME​​ OF​​ GOD

WAS ABSOLUTELY BINDING.

ANY OATH WHICH SUCCEEDED IN​​ EVADING​​ THE​​ NAME​​ OF​​ GOD

WAS HELD​​ NOT​​ TO BE BINDING.

THE RESULT WAS THAT IF A​​ MAN. . .

(I LIMIT MYSELF TO THE WORD ‘MAN’ HERE BECAUSE WOMEN​​ 

IN JESUS’ DAY WERE NOT EVEN​​ ALLOWED​​ TO TAKE OATHS

BECAUSE THE WORD OF A WOMAN WAS HELD TO BE

INHERENTLY UNTRUSTWORTHY;

THIS, TO PUT IT LIGHTLY, IS HIGHLY IRONIC, GIVEN THE LIBERTIES

THAT MEN TOOK WITH THEIR OWN OATHS.)

ANYWAY, THE COMMON RESULT OF​​ EVASIVE​​ SWEARING​​ WAS THAT

IF A MAN SWORE BY THE NAME OF​​ GOD, IN ANY FORM,

HE WAS​​ BOUND​​ TO​​ KEEP​​ THAT OATH.

BUT​​ IF HE SWORE BY​​ HEAVEN, OR BY​​ EARTH, OR BY​​ JERUSALEM,

OR BY HIS​​ HEAD, HE FELT QUITE​​ FREE​​ TO​​ BREAK​​ THE OATH.

THE PREDICTABLE RESULT WAS THAT​​ EVASION​​ AMONG

THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS HAD BECOME A​​ FINE​​ ART.

WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON HERE IS QUITE SIMILAR TO SOMETHING

THAT MANY OF US DID IN OUR CHILDHOOD YEARS:

CROSSING OUR FINGERS BEHIND OUR BACK​​ 

WHEN WE MADE A PROMISE SEEMINGLY GAVE US PERMISSION

NOT TO HAVE TO​​ KEEP​​ THAT PROMISE.

MOST OF US HAVE GIVEN UP THAT PRACTICE IN ADULTHOOD.

SADLY, IN JESUS’ DAY, PLENTY OF SUPPOSEDLY GROWN-UP MEN,

THE MAJORITY OF THE RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIP, IN FACT,​​ 

MADE IT A FINE ART TO​​ TRICK​​ THE COMMON PEOPLE,

ESPECIALLY IN MATTERS OF​​ BUSINESS, BY EVASIVE FORMS OF​​ 

SWEARING OATHS.

AS ALREADY MENTIONED, THE IDEA BEHIND THIS WAS THAT​​ 

IF GOD’S NAME WAS USED, GOD BECAME A​​ PARTNER​​ 

IN THE TRANSACTION;

WHEREAS IF GOD’S NAME WAS​​ NOT​​ USED,

GOD HAD​​ NOTHING​​ TO​​ DO​​ WITH THE TRANSACTION.

THE​​ PRINCIPLE​​ WHICH​​ JESUS​​ LAYS DOWN​​ AGAINST​​ THIS PRACTICE

IS QUITE​​ CLEAR.

IN EFFECT, JESUS IS SAYING IN THIS MORNING’S SCRIPTURE READING

THAT – FAR FROM HAVING TO​​ MAKE​​ GOD A PARTNER

IN ANY TRANSACTION, NO ONE CAN KEEP GOD​​ OUT​​ OF

ANY TRANSACTION.

GOD IS​​ ALREADY​​ THERE.

METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING, HEAVEN IS THE THRONE OF GOD;

THE EARTH IS THE FOOTSTOOL OF GOD;

JERUSALEM IS THE CITY OF GOD; OUR LIVES ARE GOD’S;

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE WORLD WHICH DOES NOT​​ 

BELONG TO GOD.

THEREFORE IT DOES NOT​​ MATTER​​ WHETHER GOD IS​​ 

ACTUALLY​​ NAMED IN SO MANY WORDS OR​​ NOT.

GOD IS THERE ALREADY.

THIS IS THE GREAT ETERNAL TRUTH WHICH JESUS IS IMPLYING:

LIFE CANNOT BE​​ DIVIDED​​ INTO​​ COMPARTMENTS​​ IN​​ SOME​​ OF WHICH

GOD​​ IS​​ INVOLVED, AND IN​​ OTHERS​​ OF WHICH GOD IS​​ NOT​​ INVOLVED.

THERE SHOULD NOT BE​​ ONE​​ KIND OF LANGUAGE IN CHURCH,

AND​​ ANOTHER​​ KIND OF LANGUAGE AT HOME, AT WORK,​​ 

OR AT SCHOOL.

THERE CANNOT BE​​ ONE​​ KIND OF STANDARD OF CONDUCT​​ 

IN​​ CHURCH, AND​​ ANOTHER​​ IN​​ BUSINESS.

THERE CANNOT BE ONE KIND OF STANDARD IN OUR​​ PRAYER​​ LIFE,

AND A DIFFERENT STANDARD ALTOGETHER IN OUR​​ POLITICS.

THE FACT IS THAT GOD CANNOT BE INVITED​​ INTO​​ CERTAIN

DEPARTMENTS OF LIFE AND KEPT​​ OUT​​ OF OTHERS.

GOD IS​​ EVERYWHERE, ALL​​ THROUGH​​ LIFE,​​ 

AND EVERY​​ ACTIVITY​​ OF LIFE.

GOD HEARS NOT ONLY THE WORDS WHICH ARE SPOKEN

IN GOD’S NAME: ​​ GOD HEARS​​ ALL​​ WORDS.

THERE CANNOT BE ANY SUCH THING WHICH EVADES​​ 

BRINGING​​ GOD​​ INTO A TRANSACTION.

SINCE WE ARE CELEBRATING THE LIFE OF LLOYD WELLS

IN OUR WORSHIP SERVICE THIS MORNING,​​ 

THIS WOULD BE THE PLACE TO HIGHLIGHT

ONE OF HIS MOST AMAZING CHARACTERISTICS –

LLOYD DID NOT DIVIDE HIS LIFE UP INTO VARIOUS COMPARTMENTS.

FOR HIM, LIVING AS A SEEKER OF​​ GOD’S​​ WAY,​​ 

LIVING AS A FOLLOWER OF JESUS, MEANT THAT​​ 

JESUS’ ATTITUDES AND VALUES PERMEATED​​ 

EVERY ASPECT OF HIS BEING.

UNLIKE SO MANY PEOPLE IN TODAYS WORLD, THE LLOYD

YOU ENCOUNTERED AT CHURCH WAS THE​​ SAME​​ LLOYD​​ 

THAT YOU EXPERIENCED AT HOME AND AT WORK.

WHAT AN INCREDIBLE GIFT LLORD’S SEAMLESS WAY OF LIVING

WAS FOR HIS WIFE BARBARA, FOR THOSE OF US​​ 

AT COMMUNITY CHURCH, AND FOR THOSE WHO​​ 

ENCOUNTERED HIM AT DEL MESA AND THE LARGER

MONTEREY PENINSULA COMMUNITY.

GLEN STASSEN ILLUSTRATES THIS SECTION​​ 

OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT BY TALKING ABOUT

THE EXAMPLE OF HIS GRANDFATHER:

HE WRITES: ​​ “AS A YOUNG BOY I WOULD GO TO

THE FARMER’S MARKET WITH MY GRANDFATHER,​​ 

A GERMAN IMMIGRANT TOMATO FARMER.

HIS BUSHELS OF TOMATOES WERE BEAUTIFUL, ALL ON DISPLAY!

ONE DAY A CUSTOMER CAME BY AND BEGAN LIFTING OUT

THE​​ TOP​​ TOMATOES TO SEE IF THOSE ON THE​​ BOTTOM

WERE AS GOOD AS THOSE ON THE TOP.

I REMEMBER WHAT MY GRANDFATHER SAID IN HIS DEEP,​​ 

GRUFF VOICE AND HEAVY GERMAN ACCENT:

‘DEY’RE DA SAME T’ROUGH AN T’ROUGH;​​ 

YA DON’T BELIEVE IT, YA GO BUY SOMEWHERE ELSE!’

THOUGH THE CUSTOMER WOULD HAVE HEARD THAT​​ 

AS ‘TRUE AND TRUE,’ HE MEANT ‘THROUGH AND THROUGH’ –

ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

MY GRANDPA WAS SO HONEST THAT HE WAS OFFENDED

IF SOMEONE EVEN​​ HINTED​​ HE MIGHT BE DECEIVING

HIS CUSTOMERS ABOUT THE QUALITY OF HIS TOMATOES.

HIS HONESTY WAS SO WIDELY KNOWN THAT HE COULD AFFORD

TO CHASE AWAY THE RARE CUSTOMER WHO MIGHT DOUBT HIM.

IN FACT, HIS REPUTATION WAS SO STERLING THAT THE TOWN

OF WEST ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, ELECTED MY GRANDPA –

WITH HIS SIXTH GRADE EDUCATION, GERMAN ACCENT,

AND MODEST MEANS – MAYOR OF THE TOWN.

FOR​​ THE REST OF MY LIFE, HIS DEEP,​​ GRUFF VOICE

HAS BEEN ECHOING IN MY HEAD:

‘TRUE AND TRUE, THROUGH AND THROUGH.’

HE IS MY MODEL FOR BEING TRUTHFUL,​​ ALL​​ THE WAY THROUGH.”

(End Quote)

IN TERMS OF BEING A MAN OF INTEGRITY ALL THE WAY THROUGH,

LLOYD WELLS IS A CLOSE RELATIVE OF GLEN STASSEN’S GRANDPA!

(PAUSE)

AS IS SO OFTEN THE CASE, THERE HAS BEEN HEATED DISAGREEMENT

ABOUT THE INTENDED​​ RANGE​​ OF MEANING OF THIS TEXT.

DID JESUS MEAN TO OUTLAW​​ ALL​​ OATHS AND SWEARING,

AS THE​​ LITERAL​​ MEANING OF THE TEXT IMPLIES,

OR WAS JESUS SPEAKING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE

OF TELLING THE TRUTH IN GENERAL?

THE PARADOX IS THAT ON THE​​ FACE​​ OF IT, TAKEN​​ LITERALLY,​​ 

THE MEANING OF JESUS’ WORDS​​ SEEMS​​ PERFECTLY CLEAR:

HIS FOLLOWERS ARE FORBIDDEN TO TAKE OATHS OF ANY KIND.

YET THE EARLIEST CHURCH​​ IGNORED​​ 

THAT SEEMINGLY CLEAR MEANING​​ 

AND DIDN’T EVEN MAKE EXCUSES FOR IGNORING IT –

BEHAVING AS IF IT KNEW IN FACT THAT JESUS’ WORDS

MEANT SOMETHING​​ DIFFERENT​​ FROM WHAT THEY​​ SEEM​​ TO MEAN.

THE MOST FAMOUS CONTENDERS FOR TAKING JESUS​​ LITERALLY​​ 

WERE THE MEDIEVAL CATHARS, THE QUAKERS, AND LEO TOLSTOY.

TOLSTOY WAS CONVINCED THAT JESUS’ WORDS

“DO NOT SWEAR AT ALL” MEAN JUST WHAT THEY SAY

AND FORBID OATHS ALTOGETHER, INCLUDING OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE

REQUIRED BY THE STATE, THE MILITARY, OR THE COURTS OF LAW.

THE​​ PROBLEM​​ WITH THIS​​ LITERAL​​ INTERPRETATION IS TWOFOLD:

FIRST, LATER ON IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW JESUS DISCUSSES

OATHS AND SWEARING IN A WAY THAT APPEARS TO TAKE

THE PRACTICE​​ FOR​​ GRANTED​​ AND TO IMPLY THAT JESUS

HAS NO OBJECTION TO IT​​ IN​​ PRINCIPLE.

SECOND, ST. PAUL​​ OFTEN​​ SPEAKS ON OATH IN HIS LETTERS,

WHICH WERE WRITTEN WITHIN​​ A FEW YEARS​​ 

OF JESUS’ DEATH AND RESURRECTION.

ONE WOULD ASSUME THAT THE​​ APOSTLES, WHO WERE STILL LIVING

AT THE TIME WHEN PAUL WAS WRITING HIS LETTERS,

WOULD HAVE​​ CORRECTED​​ HIM IF HE WERE VIOLATING

A SIGNIFICANT TEACHING OF JESUS.

GIVEN THESE STRONG REASONS FOR​​ NOT​​ TAKING JESUS​​ LITERALLY,

WE CAN, I THINK, SAFELY ASSUME THAT JESUS WAS TALKING ABOUT

THE IMPORTANCE OF​​ SPEAKING​​ THE​​ TRUTH​​ IN​​ GENERAL.

JESUS’ APPARENT ATTACK ON OATHS IS, ACCORDING TO

THIS APPROACH, INTERPRETED AS THE ETHICAL DEMAND

FOR​​ TRUTHFULNESS.

THE EXAMPLES OF “SWEARING” THAT JESUS GIVES​​ 

IN TODAY’S SECTION OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

ARE​​ NOT​​ FORMS OF OATHS USED IN​​ COURT,

BUT THE OATHS WITH WHICH THE TYPICAL PRIEST, SCRIBE,​​ 

OR PHARISEE​​ EMPHASIZED THE TRUTHFULNESS OF HIS REMARKS

IN​​ EVERYDAY​​ SPEECH.

THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS HAVE NO NEED OF THESE OATHS,

BECAUSE JESUS EXPECTS THE UNDIVIDED TRUTH FROM​​ THEM,

AND FROM​​ US.

EACH​​ OF OUR WORDS IS TO BE TRUTHFUL, WITHOUT NEEDING

CONFIRMATION THROUGH AN APPEAL TO GOD.

GOD IS A GOD OF​​ TRUTH, AND THEREFORE THE TRUTH

IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF GOD’S KINGDOM, OR BETTER,​​ KIN-DOM,

OR REIGN.

FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, JESUS’ APPARENT ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION

OF SWEARING CAN BE SEEN AS A​​ DRAMATIC​​ WAY OF​​ EMPHASIZING

GOD’S DEMAND FOR ABSOLUTELY TRUTHFUL SPEECH.

IT IS NOT THE STRICT ADHERENCE TO SOME ARBITRARY

PROHIBITION OF SWEARING THAT IS AN ABSOLUTE VALUE.

RATHER,​​ BEING​​ TRUTHFUL, BEING​​ FILLED​​ WITH​​ TRUTH

IS THE ABSOLUTE VALUE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD SEEK​​ 

AND SHOULD ENDEAVOR TO LIVE BY​​ 

IF THEY WANT TO LIVE WITH GOD.

THIS BRINGS US TO THE QUESTION: ​​ ARE THERE ANY SEEMING

EXCEPTIONS​​ TO THIS RULE OF TRUTH-TELLING?

IN OTHER WORDS, PARADOXICALLY, ARE THERE TIMES WHEN​​ 

TELLING​​ THE​​ TRUTH​​ REQUIRES US TO​​ LIE?

THE ANSWER, PERHAPS SURPRISINGLY, IS​​ YES.

AND IF YES​​ IS​​ THE CASE, HOW DO WE​​ JUSTIFY​​ 

THESE SEEMING EXCEPTIONS TO TELLING THE TRUTH?

LET ME ANSWER THIS QUESTION BY LOOKING​​ 

AT THE LIFE OF DIETRICH BONHOEFFER.

THE PASTOR AND THEOLOGICAN DIETRICH BONHOEFFER FACED

A MAJOR CHALLENGE TO TRUTHFULNESS DURING THE NAZI REGIME

IN GERMANY DURING​​ WORLD WAR II.

BONHOEFFER WAS INVOLVED IN A SECRET PROJECT

THAT SUCCESSFULLY ASSISTED JEWISH PERSONS​​ 

TO ESCAPE TO SWITZERLAND.

HE WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN A PLOT​​ 

TO TOPPLE THE NAZI GOVERNMENT.

TO SAVE LIVES, HE HAD TO TELL SOME LIES.

YET HE HAD ENORMOUS LOYALTY TO TELLING THE TRUTH.

HOW COULD BONHEOFFER BE SUCH A STRONG FOLLOWER OF JESUS

AND SUCH A STRONG BELIEVER IN TELLING THE TRUTH,

AND YET JUSTIFY NOT TELLING THE NAZIS WHAT HE KNEW ABOUT

JEWISH PEOPLE HIDING AND ESCAPING?

AS A METAPHOR, HE WROTE AN ESSAY ABOUT A BOY IN SCHOOL

BEING ASKED BY HIS TEACHER IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE CLASS

WHETHER HIS FATHER OFTEN CAME HOME DRUNK.

THE BOY KNEW THAT HIS FATHER​​ DID, BUT HE ALSO SENSED

THAT THE TEACHER HAD NO BUSINESS ASKING A QUESTION

THAT WAS SO DAMAGING TO HIS FATHER’S REPUTATION

IN FRONT OF EVERYONE.

SO TO THE QUESTON OF WHETHER HIS FATHER​​ 

OFTEN CAME HOME DRUNK THE BOY ANSWERED “NO.”

BONHOEFFER ARGUED THAT THE​​ BOY​​ UNDERSTOOD

THE MEANING OF TRUTH IN RELATIONSHIP TO​​ REALITY

BETTER THAN HIS​​ TEACHER​​ DID.

THE BOY HAD NO​​ COVENANT, NO SOLEMN​​ PROMISE,

WITH HIS TEACHER OBLIGATING HIM TO TELL ABOUT

PRIVATE FAMILY MATTERS.

THIS​​ UNDERSTANDING OF TRUTH ASSUMES THAT TRUTH

IS A​​ RELATIONSHIP, A​​ COVENANT.

BONHOEFFER HAD NO COVENANT RELATIONSHIOP WITH THE NAZIS

WHICH REQUIRED HIM TO TELL THEM WHERE JEWISH PERSONS

WERE HIDING.

IN FACT, HIS COVENANT RELATIONSHIP WITH​​ GOD

OVERRODE​​ HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS​​ COUNTRY,

REQUIRING​​ HIM, IN THIS CASE, TO​​ LIE​​ TO THE NAZIS.

TO CONCLUDE, LET’S LOOK AT A MORE RECENT EXAMPLE

OF THE COVENANTAL NATURE OF TELLING THE TRUTH.

THE LEAD ARTICLE IN A RECENT ISSUE OF​​ THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY

WAS CALLED, SIMPLY, “LIES.”

IT FEATURED TEN DIFFERENT EXAMPLES BY TEN DIFFERENT AUTHORS

TO ILLUSTRATE THE MANY DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS​​ 

OF THE WORD “LIE.”

THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATES HOW TELLING​​ 

A LITERAL​​ LIE​​ CAN SOMETIMES BE NECESSARY TO TELL

A DEEPER​​ TRUTH.

HOWARD BOWMAN, FROM WISCONSIN, WRITES:

“IT WAS 2:30 A.M., AND I HAD JUST DOZED OFF.

I HEARD A KNOCK AT THE FELLOWSHIP HALL DOOR OF THE CHURCH.

THE POLICE OFFICER ASKED IF EVERYTHING WAS OK,

AND I RESPONDED AS USUAL:

“YES, OFFICER, WE’RE HAVING OUR USUAL PRAYER VIGIL.”

BOWMAN CONTINUES:

“I’VE TOLD MORE THAN ONE LIE IN MY LIFE,

BUT THIS IS BY FAR THE​​ BEST​​ ONE.

AS A VOLUNTEER FOR THE DIVINE INTERVENTION MINISTRY

AT TIPPECANOE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN MILWAUKEE,

I’VE GOTTEN TO KNOW SOME WONDERFUL PEOPLE.

EACH NIGHT EARL PAINSTAKINGLY ROLLS THE PERFECT CIGARETTE

AND PUTS IT BEHIND HIS EAR, PATIENTLY WAITING FOR THE

DESIGNATED TEN MINUTES OF OUTSIDE SMOKING AT 11 P.M.

THOUGH PATTY’S LIFE HAS BROUGHT A SERIES OF DISASTERS,

SHE NEVER LOSES HOPE THAT​​ 

“THINGS WILL GET BETTER TOMORROW.”

SID FASTIDIOUSLY AND CHEERFULLY CLEANS​​ 

THE SMALL BATHROOMS EVERY HOUR ON THE HOUR.

I AM PROFOUNDLY AFFECTED AND TRANSFORMED

BY THESE “STREET PEOPLE” WHOSE RESILIENCE, RESOURCEFULNESS,

AND HOPE PUTS ME, A RETIRED WHITE SUBURBANITE, TO SHAME.

WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE “PROBLEM” OF HOMELESS PEOPLE

IN HER CHURCH’S NEIGHBORHOOD, PASTOR KAREN HAGEN

AND HER CHURCH REFUSED TO BE​​ DAUNTED.

THEY RESPONDED BY DEVELOPING A NIGHTLY “PRAYER VIGIL” –

THEY WOULD PROVIDE A WARM, SAFE PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO STAY

DURING THE COLD MILWAUKEE NIGHTS,

BUT SINCE THERE WAS​​ NO​​ WAY​​ THIS SMALL CHURCH FACILITY

COULD​​ MEET​​ THE​​ CITY​​ CODE,

THEY’D​​ CALL​​ THE​​ SHELTER​​ AN ALL-NIGHT​​ PRAYER​​ VIGIL,

ONE THAT IS NOW​​ GREATLY​​ APPRECIATED​​ BY THE LOCAL POLICE

AND NEIGHBORS AS WELL AS THOSE WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE

OF THE SHELTER. . .

BOWMAN CONCLUDES:

“I’VE BEEN​​ ASHAMED​​ OF​​ SOME​​ OF THE LIES I’VE TOLD.

BUT I HAVE BEEN​​ PROUD​​ TO TELL A POLICE OFFICER

IN THE EARLY MORNIGN HOURS,​​ 

“WE’RE HAVING OUR USUAL PRAYER VIGIL.”

(End Quote)

THIS UNDERSTANDING OF TRUTH AS LIVED OUT OF A

COVENT RELATIONSHIP WITH A PERSONAL GOD

BRINGS US TO THE CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDING​​ 

THAT TRUTH IS TO BE FOUND BY FOLLOWING A​​ PERSON,

NAMELY​​ JESUS, AND NOT BY FOLLOWING A PHILOSOPHICAL,

CULTURAL, OR EVEN THEOLOGICAL​​ SYSTEM.

WHEN JESUS SAYS IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN,

“I​​ AM THE​​ WAY, THE​​ TRUTH, AND THE​​ LIFE​​ (John 14:6a),

HE IS INVITING US TO​​ DISCOVER​​ THE WAY, THE TRUTH,

AND THE LIFE IN A COVENANT RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM.

AND WE CAN BE SURE THAT LIVING IN COVENANT WITH JESUS

WILL LEAD US TO SOME AMAZING ADVENTURES.

AMEN.