Love: A Sermon from Feb 19th 2017

Song of Solomon 8:6-7

“Set me as a seal upon your heart,
    as a seal upon your arm;
for love is strong as death,
    passion fierce as the grave.
Its flashes are flashes of fire,
    a raging flame.
⁷ Many waters cannot quench love,
    neither can floods drown it.
If one offered for love
    all the wealth of one’s house,
    it would be utterly scorned.”

Sermon:

          Some of you may not know this, but one of Dorothy’s jobs is to sit and listen to the random and often crazy ideas of her boss. For quite some time now, I’ve been going on about how I’ve been wanting to teach on Song of Solomon. And as you might expect, she’ll sit there and nod her head and give that look that says, “Sure, I understand. But are you sure that’s a good idea?” When that happens, I usually imagine myself standing there then laugh and walk back in my office wondering if I should really do something so foolish. After all, there’s a reason most preachers stay clear of this book.

          But I suppose that my interest in teaching this book comes from two sources. First, no one ever touches on it. For me, that’s a fun challenge to be surmounted. There’s something exhilarating about doing something different and perhaps even a bit scandalous. Second, I picked up a commentary last year that has had me pretty jazzed. It’s entitled, Exquisite Desire: Religion, the Erotic, and the Song of Songs and it’s written by Carey Ellen Walsh. If you ever come to my office I can show it to you, and the first thing you’ll notice is that the cover is well suited to the content of the book it studies. The cover illustrates the genre of it's subject - religious erotica.

          The tipping point in my resistance to touching on this book of the Bible finally came this week with the celebration of Valentine’s Day. When I came to the office on Tuesday I had to come up with a sermon topic so it made sense for me to preach about love. I’ve preached on love before, of course, but never romantic erotic love. As most of you know, the Greek New Testament has a number of words for love and each carries a different connotation. Greek, unlike English, distinguishes between different types of love. Many of us are probably familiar with the term agape which refers to the kind of love that God or a parent may have for us. Nearby we have a city with a Greek name – Philadelphia is drawn from phileo which is the kind of love one might have towards their close friends, think David and Jonathan.  But there is, of course, another type of love, namely eros. So today I want us to think through this kind of love.

          In a moment, Marie is going to start a clip that might help us think through this topic. Some of you may not be very familiar with some of the references, but I think you will get the overall message anyway. I think that there’s a central lesson to be learned.

          Our society, or perhaps even most societies, is in a constant state of flux over the question of what love really means. We don’t really know how to answer the question definitively. It’s a bit of a mystery really, and yet I think there are some things we can know. First and foremost, there are always mythologies that play into our concepts of love. We have the fairy tales where a noble knight rides in in chivalric prose to save the fair maiden from some sort of evil. We have the idea of soul mates – the idea that there was one specific person God created for you to marry. We have the mythology that couples are supposed to feel the same feelings they felt on their wedding day 40 years later, as though no one ever feels the seven-year itch or that ‘happily ever after’ somehow comes easily.

          In some ways, the Song of Solomon is like these things. It’s a poem that “portrays erotic love between two young people who are not yet betrothed and whose union is not yet recognized by the young woman’s family.”[1] Pastors aren’t normally drawn to preach on texts that hint strongly at premarital hanky-panky. But maybe there’s a lesson in our history with this book. Christians have an interpretative tradition that’s nearly two thousand years old now, wherein we read this book of the Bible allegorically. In other words, we have often realized that we can’t really fit this book of the Bible together easily with our traditional views about what a young couple should be up to before they get married.[2] So, we’ve decided to read a rather long poem, unsurprisingly, in a rather poetic way. We’ve said that this poetry foreshadows the love Christ has for His Church – that it’s true purpose is to highlight the final union the two will have when Christ finally returns. This approach harkens back to the famous phrase Paul gave us when he said, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25).

          I think there’s truth to this point. I believe that it is an edifying and hopeful lens we can take towards our future. However, I also think that it obscures the value that the Song of Solomon might have in itself, some intrinsic worth that it might have apart from our attempts to explain it away through the words of Paul or other Biblical writers. The video we just watched talked a lot about how the old chivalrous ideas of love are falling away in the age of online dating – how ‘excarnation’ is eroding the concepts of love we developed in the late middle ages.

When I was much younger it was easy to point out the flaws of the fairy tale love popularized by Disney movies, but maybe there is a value in the fairy tale even if it’s not true. Maybe it was never intended to tell the truth we find in history or science. Perhaps it’s possible that the Song of Solomon was never intended to serve as an ethical treatise for how we should go about dating, marrying, or instructing our children. Poetry isn’t usually intended for those purposes, is it? We don’t go to the Psalms to learn how we should treat others. If we did, we’d all probably be quite violent! No, we go to the Psalms and Song of Solomon because they both speak to something in us that is definitively human – they speak to our souls.

I think that it is possible that in a day and age when we’re experiencing massive levels of objectification and ‘excarnation’ we might need the fairy tales to remind us of the ideals we should strive for. One of my favorite philosophers is the Swiss-born Alain de Botton. In his novel The Course of Love, he writes about our shallow understanding of real-life intimacy: "What we typically call love is only the start of love."[3] And yet this is one of the cruelest games we play on young couples. We suggest that this transitory high is supposed to last, as though it will never change with time, experience, and strong personalities. It’s as though we don’t want to tell them that they’re going to be tested. It’s as though we don’t want to let them in on the secret that they’re going to have to work hard later on. Sometimes, I wonder if it’s as though no one wants to spoil the surprise.

For most of the people in this room, this was the big challenge. Most of us have had to face the crumbling façade of expectations that we thought we knew, only to be challenged to rise up to the occasion of trying to figure out what love means beyond the fairy tales, beyond the myths, and beyond the images of our youth. On the other hand, those of us who are a bit younger are facing a completely different monster. I, like most of the millennials here, have live not only at the tail end of the chivalric period we all share but also the beginning of the new era that we just learned about in that video. Our society has moved away from the dreamy land of shiny knights and fair maidens and landed in a world where we draft lists of what we want in a partner. As the video pointed out, these lists can often reflect an element of our own narcissism. Or, if we set aside our dreams, we shut ourselves off emotionally and go through the dating process trying to stimulate ourselves without becoming emotionally vulnerable. I think that it’s fair to say that we haven’t really made any progress. We’ve just added a bit of sophistication to our chaos.

This is why I wish more people told us about a deeper kind love, the long-term kind. The one forged by compromise, patience and accepting other people as they are, not as we wish them to be. I’m particularly drawn to the words of Paul, where he says,

“Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.” (1 Cor. 13:4-8)

This is why the canon is so important. As Christians, we read our texts in the context of the whole Bible. If we stuck to the words of Song of Solomon alone, we probably wouldn’t have much of an ethical outlook on how we can erotically love someone ethically. We’d have some really explicit erotic literature, but we wouldn’t have a larger context to place it into.

          More than anything else, love is an act. It’s something we choose to do. Up behind me there are four quotes, one of these is from the French Existentialist Albert Camus. As you can see it reads, “What does love add to desire? An inestimable thing: friendship.”[4] I think this is, perhaps, the most essential lesson. It’s easy to figure out that the two most important things for a marriage are kindness and empathy.[5] This is true not just for romance, but for all relationships. Love isn’t just about chemistry. Chemistry is a great start, but it’s not the most essential part. Love is about building something beautiful.

          This may be a but abstract, but I think it’s pretty essential. Beauty and love are intricately connected and I’m not just referring to how good looking the person next to you might be. No, I’m talking about what you can build with the person next to you, your spouse, your friends, your children. There’s a reason the Bible often refers to the beauty of Creation when everything is going well and its ugliness when God’s mad at what we’ve been doing. There’s an inherent value in what we can build together. That’s why we gather here together in this place, or with our families, or with our friends. We’re trying to live into the possibility of building something beautiful to live within both in the present and in the future.

          I don’t want to get into Plato too much this morning, although I’m sure that you all know that I’m tempted, but I think this is important. Why would the creator of the universe create our world at all? He certainly doesn’t need us. Perhaps the answer is the same as the answer any artist would give. Beauty is always valuable, particular when it’s present in relationships – be they romantic, fraternal, familial, or even church-based. As one author, I read this week wrote:

“Beauty either of an individual, or indeed of anything else we value as supremely beautiful, is the creative environment in which we try to secure some share of whatever we deem to be of value for ourselves.”[6]

All of us here together, that’s beautiful. It’s valuable. When we build something together with our partners that too is beautiful – it has inherent value. It’s made stronger by the guidelines and teachings that we can find through the Bible.

          But I think it’s important to remember that beauty isn’t just about ethics. It’s not just about our lists of what to do and what not to do. Beauty can be the thing that drives our efforts to do the right thing. The act of creating can push us in the right direction. So perhaps it makes sense that we get the Song of Solomon before we ever get Paul. Maybe we’re human before we’re ever civilized. Maybe we need fairy tales to guide us through the long lonely nights and push us towards the kinds of acts that make us a better species. Maybe we need a weird little book smack-dab in the middle of the Bible to remind us that the ideals and naivety behind a little hanky-panky might actually be what makes us truly beautiful. Should that be guided by wisdom and experience? Of course, but maybe there’s a little wisdom in the Song of Solomon after all – a testament to the ideals towards the passions that should drive us all to make the world just a little more beautiful. After all, I’m pretty convinced that God is in the business of transforming broken things into things of wonder. May we all strive to live and love into the example Christ gave us – to be moved to build and create relationships of beauty. Amen.

---

[1] Michael V. Fox, “Introduction to The Song of Solomon” in NRSV Study Bible.

[2] Many of these traditional views aren’t actually drawn from strong Jewish sources, but Stoic ones that began to influence the Ancient Near East roughly 200 years before Christ, culminating around 200-300 AD. This was, in a sense, a sexual revolution. See: Michel Foucault, The Care of Self: Volume 3 of The History of Sexuality, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage Books, 1988).

[3] Alain de Botton, The Course of Love (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2016), p. 8.

[4] Albert Camus, Carnets III (1951-1959).

[5] Emily Esfahani Smith, “Masters of Love: Science says lasting relationships come down to – you guessed it – kindness and generosity” in The Atlantic, June 12, 2014; and Jake Newfield, “Why Empathy Is Key for Your Relationships”, The Huffington Post, November 20^th 2015.

[6] Frisbee Sheffield, “Why There Is No Such Thing as a Soul Mate: Reading Plato on Valentine’s Day”: http://www.thecritique.com/articles/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-soul-mate/?utm_content=buffer1d699&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Philosophy and Tyrants

"The philosopher's every attempt at directly influencing the tyrant is necessarily ineffectual."

Alexandre Kojève, Tyranny and Wisdom in Victor Gourevitch and Michael Roth, eds., Leo Strauss, On Tyranny: Including the Strauss-Kojève Debate (New York: Free Press, 1991), pp. 165-166.

Proud Pastor

I couldn't be prouder of my congregants. A week ago my ladies boarded a bus at our denomination's headquarters in Valley Forge and rode down to Washington D.C. to join the protest. Two of them are featured in this American Baptist Home Mission Societies article:

http://abhms.org/about-us/mission-stories/american-baptists-share-reasons-for-marching-in-d-c/

 

The Hegemony of Pop Culture

"They live in the unreal realm of the mega-rich, yet they hide behind a folksy facade, wolfing down pizza at the Oscars and cheering sports teams from V.I.P. boxes... Opera, dance, poetry, and the literary novel are still called 'elitist', despite the fact that the world's real power has little use for them. The old hierarchy of high and low culture has become a sham: pop is the ruling party."

Alex Ross, "The Naysayers: Walter Benjamin, Theodore Adorno, and the Critique of Pop Culture", The New Yorker, September 15th 2014.

Adorno on Truth and Suffering

"The need to let suffering speak is a condition of all truth. For suffering is objectivity that weighs upon the subject."

Theodore Adorno, Negative Dialectics (Routledge, 2003), p. 17.

John Dewey on the Threat that Totalitarianism Poses to Democracy

"The serious threat to our democracy is not the existence of foreign totalitarian states. It is the existence within our own personal attitudes and within our own institutions of conditions which have given a victory to external authority, discipline, uniformity and dependence upon The Leader in foreign countries. The battlefield is also accordingly here - within ourselves and our institutions."

Erich Fromm citing John Dewey in Escape from Freedom (Avon, 1965), pp. 19-20.

Societal Disintegration and the Rationality of Narratives

Earlier this year, in a sermon about postmodernity, I preached about Foucault's inversion of Sir Francis Bacon's "Knowledge is Power." For Foucault, power is knowledge. But what does this mean? It means that the social disintegration we see around us, particularly in the increasing bifurcation of our political worldviews, can be explained by Foucault. "Post-truth" politics seems to be the phrase of 2016, but Foucault predicted this and even suggested that it undergirded our systems of rationality nearly four decades ago. The increasing separation of our worldviews (Republican and Democratic) is a reflection of the structures of power, and their constituent methodologies, that create and sustain the narratives and news-cycles that we consume. Without a common enemy, like the Soviet Union, our competitive worlds have turned on each other, rather than unifying behind a singular methodology - like the kinds of journalism we saw under the Cold War.

Academics and Ministry

One of the pastors who had the largest impact on my own development just started a sabbatical in the American Southwest to write poetry. It's one of his great talents. Sometimes it even makes its way into his sermons. I've always been inspired by spiritual mentors who try to live holistic journeys, full of a rich mixture of curiosity and empathy. For me the academic side of ministry isn't a retreat into obscurity, but an engagement with all of life's riches. If we're called t...o walk alongside and hold people as they face their own joys and trials, shouldn't we strive to understand them as much as possible? God sees the depths of our joys, our discoveries, and our pains. Christ lived them. Part of our task as Christians is to strive to be like Christ to those around us, even in the depths by which he drew near to people. That's my thought, perhaps dream, for this evening.

Marcuse on Nonalienated Labor

"The real danger for the established system is not the abolition of labor but the possibility of nonalienated labor as the basis of the reproduction of society."

Herbert Marcuse, "Aggressiveness in Advanced Industrial Society" in Negations: Essays in Critical Theory (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967).

Benjamin on Marx's Project

"When Marx undertook his critique of the capitalist mode of production this mode was in its infancy. He went back to basic conditions underlying capitalistic production and through his presentation showed what could be expected of capitalism in the future. The result was that one could expect it not only to exploit the proletariat with increasing intensity but ultimately to create conditions which would make it possible to abolish capitalism itself."

Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, ed. Hannah Arendt (New York: Shocken Books, 2007), p. 211.

Hobbes on Freedom

"A Free-Man, is he, that in those things, which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to doe what he has a will to do."

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Richard Tuck (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 146.

Jürgen Habermas on Communication

"Liberation from hunger and misery does not necessarily converge with liberation from servitude and degradation; there is no automatic developmental relation between labour and interaction."

Jürgen Habermas, Theory and Practice (Beacon Press, 1973), p. 169.

Erich Fromm on Marx's Fetishised Labour

Spinoza, Hegel, and Goethe all held that, "man is alive only inasmuch as he is productive, inasmuch as he grasps the world outside of himself in the act of expressing his own specific human powers, and of grasping the world with these powers. Inasmuch as man is not productive, inasmuch as he is receptive and passive, he is nothing, he is dead. In this productive process, man realises his own essence, he returns to his own essence, which in theological language is nothing other than his return to God."

Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man: Including 'Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (Bloomsbury, 2013), p. 26.

Horkheimer on Utopia and Schopenhauer's Wheel of Ixion

"The ensnarement of humanity in eternal nature and an unswerving struggle against temporal injustice are already central in his thinking. As essential as he finds it that the 'unjust distribution of goods' be abolished, he nevertheless wonders if the fulfillment of the boldest utopias would not leave the 'great' torment untouched, 'because the core of his life is... torment and dying."

Alfred Schmidt, 'Max Horkheimer's Intellectual Physiognomy', in On Max Horkheimer: New Perspectives, ed. Seyla Benhabib, Wolfgang Bonns and John McCole (Boston: MIT Press, 1995), p. 26.

Horkeimer's Spring

"I feel sorry for you, you now know the truth... Nut it is not enough to take off the rose-tinted glasses and then to stand there confused and helpless. You have to use your eyes and learn to walk in the colder world. Intoxicate yourselves and praise every minute that you spend without being conscious, for consciousness is terrible; only Gods can possess it clear and undistorted and still smile."

Max Horkheimer's vagrant speaking to the young couple in  Spring as cited in: John Abrometit, Max Horkheimer and the Foundations of the Frankfurt School (Cambridge University press, 2011), pp. 31-32.

Marcuse on Liberation

"All liberation depends on the consciousness of servitude, and the emergence of this consciousness is always hampered by the predominance of needs and satisfactions which, to a great extent, have become the individual's own."

Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1991), p. 7.

Thinking about Peace in Times of War, Injustice, and Dehumanization.

December 4th, 2016

Isaiah 10:1-11

Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees,
    who write oppressive statutes,
² to turn aside the needy from justice
    and to rob the poor of my people of their right,
that widows may be your spoil,
    and that you may make the orphans your prey!
³ What will you do on the day of punishment,
    in the calamity that will come from far away?
To whom will you flee for help,
    and where will you leave your wealth,
⁴ so as not to crouch among the prisoners
    or fall among the slain?
For all this his anger has not turned away;
    his hand is stretched out still.

⁵ Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger—
    the club in their hands is my fury!
⁶ Against a godless nation I send him,
    and against the people of my wrath I command him,
to take spoil and seize plunder,
    and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
⁷ But this is not what he intends,
    nor does he have this in mind;
but it is in his heart to destroy,
    and to cut off nations not a few.
⁸ For he says:
“Are not my commanders all kings?
⁹ Is not Calno like Carchemish?
    Is not Hamath like Arpad?
    Is not Samaria like Damascus?
¹⁰ As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols
    whose images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria

shall I not do to Jerusalem and her idols
    what I have done to Samaria and her images?”

Sermon:

          In 1954, amidst the fear and terror of the Cold War, a German-Jewish exile named Herbert Marcuse wrote that, "The defeat of Fascism and National Socialism has not arrested the trend towards totalitarianism. Freedom is on the retreat - in the realm of thought as well as in that of society."[1] It’s a statement that refers to the many faces that dehumanization and horror can take on. At that time the world was facing the possibility of nuclear annihilation, a possibility and terror that we are perhaps too eager to forget about these days. Ten years after writing those words, Marcuse went on to express his fears about how interrelated productivity and destruction are. The more we produce and consume, the more waste we generate. Rather than encouraging schools to embrace curriculums that focused on individuals we had begun to move towards a system where our hopes, thoughts, and fears became attached to institutions like governments, mass media, and corporate interests. The outbreak of the New Left and the student protests of the 1960’s were largely a product of a search for individuality – of young people crying out for a place for subjectivity – the ever-pressing question of “who am I?” and “what does it mean to live an authentic life?”. And in the midst of this also stood the same dark specter that we see in our world today – “misery in the face of unprecedented wealth.”[2]

     Much has changed, yet little has too. It’s a paradox of our contemporary life. Each of you can recount the thousands of ways your lives have changed over the years. Yet, if you think about some of the fundamental things, a lot has changed very little. The world still faces the abyss of nuclear annihilation, war, famine, and the existential angst of realizing that “our lofty ideals about the rights of the individual under democracy have in fact yielded a society in which ‘choice’ – at least for a certain demographic – is the difference between two forms of scented body wash.”[3] To put it another way, we’ve come to a place in the history of civilization where ‘uniqueness’ and ‘individuality’ have been commodified. So much so, in fact, that varying degrees of uniqueness are a privilege that come with geography, education, parentage, and exposure. As the sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu argued, we don’t choose our tastes so much as the micro-specifics of our class determine them.

     All of this can be encompassed under the realization that some things haven’t changed for the better 1964. Some things certainly have, but many of the problems that we faced back then still exist now. In some respects, they even exist in more extreme forms. In the 1960’s young adults rose up in an attempted revolt against many of the societal ills they saw around them. Other did not, but many did. Today, millennials have a derogatory label that they sometimes throw at people. If a girl wears a particular kind of outfit, behaves a particular way, and gets a pumpkin spice latte from Starbucks every morning she might be labeled “basic.” It’s a label that implies that she is boring and not creative enough to be interesting. Now, I think that’s interesting not only because it’s an incredibly dehumanizing thing to say about another person, but because it also flips the behavior of the beatniks and hippies right on its head. Rather than rejecting consumerism, wastefulness, or other extremes, today’s hipsters judge people on the basis of the ‘authenticity’ or ‘uniqueness’ of their purchases and hobbies. Classism and stigmas have not disappeared, they have only taken on new – ever more consumeristic – forms. Our society still faces the threats that Marcuse listed; they’ve only changed clothing.

     Most of us probably assume that the book of Isaiah is paired with Advent and Christmas because he provides us with a lot of the foreshadowing, prophecies, and imagery we use for the Baby Jesus. I think that’s true. Yet, I also can’t help but notice the irony in pairing this particular prophet with a season that has become all that it has become for us as 21^st century Americans. Let’s list out all of issues that the lectionary provides for us as we reflect on the theme of peace. Isaiah lists:

• Evil and unjust laws and political actions.
• Indifference and a turning away from the needs of the poor.
• Robbing the poor of what is justly theirs. In the context of ancient Israel, that would have included the right to basic things like food as well as fair treatment before the law.
• Isaiah, speaking for God, condemns those who prey on widows and orphans – the weakest in society. God is in the business of getting mad when people take advantage of those who are most vulnerable.

Isaiah even goes so far as to goad those who have committed these crimes. He insinuates that their money and privilege will not protect them from the wrath that God will unleash upon them. The wonderful thing about the prophets is that they show how thoroughly enraged God can get with those who commit crimes against other humans. He is, after all, a God of justice. So, when we get to the second-half of today’s lectionary text for the season of Advent – the season where we celebrate the coming of God – we hear about God using another nation (Assyria) as his hand of wrath, even though they too are evil. God does not like it when any nation or people, regardless of size, behaves evilly. However, there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that he regards the bad behavior of his own people as an even worse offense.

     So why all of this on this Sunday? Why did the people who composed the lectionary choose this passage of scripture to talk about peace? I’ll be honest, I don’t know if this particular passage dates back to medieval use. However, I can say that I think that this passage can help us reflect on the message of peace in a way that is critically important. Peace is not just about the absence of violence. Peace is something that flows out of justice and righteousness. There can be no peace when the poor and vulnerable are being exploited. A person or society that commits injustices can not only not have peace with God, but cannot realistically claim to have peace in any real material sense either. I believe that there is good reason to believe that the Bible tells us economic violence and exploitation undermines peace in a material and ontological sense as well. If one segment of society is stealing from, or exploiting, another part of society the people who are responsible for that not only have to face the fact that they’ve violated God’s laws, but they also have to face the fact that they’ve undermined the trust and peace that helps the different components of a society work together cooperatively – the peace between peoples who may share a common language, culture, religion, or geography.

     Today we’re celebrating the coming of the true Prince of Peace and that’s a powerful thing. It’s a title we probably think about less than we should. When we invoke it, we might glance at it and just assume that it means that one day there won’t be any more warfare. I think we miss something very fundamental to a biblical conception of peace when we do that. Sometimes it’s helpful to really sit with a biblical idea like peace and look at the contexts in which it is used.

     Even if we think about the usage of the term “holiness” what are we really referring to? Many of us probably have a number of extrapolations as to what it means, but in the Biblical context it’s really just a referral to God’s removal from the taint of everything we’ve just been talking about. Holiness, when it is applied to God, is a recognition of his transcendence; and in that respect, it is related to the concept of righteousness and majesty. God is absolute and complete, totally self-sufficient and non-contingent. As a consequence, God is not affected by things like insufficiency. God is, in our faith, good and pure; and consequently righteous – incapable of doing evil. We are obviously very capable of doing evil. Holiness is really an issue of that distinction between us, beings capable of atrocious things, and God who is not.

     Peace is a similar thing. God is peace in the fact that there is harmony within the trinity; one substance expressed in three persons who are not in conflict. We are not blessed to have the luxury of having a substance that we all share. However, we do have a common humanity, so peace for us is inextricably bound to righteousness. Our task is to be at peace God and one another. We cannot have one without the other. Its our acts of right and wrong that have an effects upon the peace we see in the world. Acts of physical, emotional, or economic violence remove us from the kind of peace that God calls us to – that Jesus embodies. Words that we may express that dehumanize other people also destabilize the peace that God calls us to. In a sense, we fall short of peace whenever we fail to be just. That’s why we read Isaiah this morning. The coming of God is about the coming of peace.

     Today, we’re celebrating a different kind of future. We’re celebrating the opportunity to live into a different future – a future where each and every one of us strives to imitate Christ and make the world a more peaceful place. Jesus doesn’t just redeem us and offer us forgiveness. He demonstrates what a more perfect humanity can look like. Following Jesus is about following that example. May we strive to make the world a better place, to live lives of love, and to act justly. If we can do that, we can make the world a more peaceful place.

---

[1] Herbert Marcuse, "Epilogue," Reason and Revolution, 2nd ed. (New York: Humanities Press, 1954), pp. 433ff.

[2] Herbert Marcuse, "Introduction to the First Edition," One-Dimensional Man (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1991), p. xlv.

[3] Anne Helen Petersen, “What We’re Really Afraid of When We Call Someone ‘Basic’: Breaking Down Why We’re Actually Dismissive of All Things Pumpkin Spice” (Buzzfeed, October 20^th 2014): https://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/basic-class-anxiety?utm_term=.mp4rN9jnP#.mmWVaYEZL

Marcuse on the Need for Change

"... the need for qualitative change is as pressing as ever before. Needed by whom? The answer continues to be the same: by the society as a whole, for every one of its members. The union of growing productivity and growing destruction; the brinkmanship of annihilation; the surrender of thought, hope, and fear to the decisions of the powers that be; the preservation of misery in the face of unprecedented wealth constitute the most impartial indictment - even if they are the raison d'être of this society but only its by-product: its sweeping rationality, which propels efficiency and growth, is itself irrational."

Herbert Marcuse, "Introduction to the First Edition," One-Dimensional Man (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1991), p. xlv.

Marcuse on Totalitarianism

"The defeat of Fascism and National Socialism has not arrested the trend towards totalitarianism. Freedom is on the retreat - in the realm of thought as well as in that of society."

Herbert Marcuse, "Epilogue," Reason and Revolution, 2nd ed. (New York: Humanities Press, 1954), pp. 433ff.

Benjamin on Capitalism

"Capitalism, was a natural phenomenon with which a new dream-filled sleep came over Europe, and, through it, a reactivation of mythic forces."

Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project (Belknap, 2002), p. 391.

Schiller on Play

"Man plays only when he is in the full sense of the word a man, and he is only wholly Man when he is playing."

Friedrich Schiller, On the Aesthetic Education of Man: A Series of Letters, trans. R. Snell (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1965), p. 80.

Marcuse on the Practical Element of Philosophy

"Only when [concrete philosophy] influences existence in the public sphere, in its daily being, in the sphere where it really exists, can it hasten the movement of this existence in the direction of truth... At the end of every concrete philosophy stands the public act."

Herbert Marcuse, "Über die konkrete Philosophie," Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 62 (1929): 124, 127.

Marcuse on Marx's Rejection of the 'bios theoretikos'

"... historical necessity is realized through men's activities. Men can bypass this activity - recent history is full of such bungled revolutionary situations - and can degrade themselves from subject to objects of history. The task of theory is to free praxis in light of the knowledge of necessity."

Herbert Marcuse, "Contributions to a Phenomenology of Historical Materialism," Telos 4 (Fall 1969): 6.

Marcuse on the Problem of Reification/Alienation and Inauthenticity

"Everything is an endless sum of activities, one after the other, yet all are inextricably interconnected and determined. All these activities are divorced from the agent who is not part of them, but only deals with them, minds his own business, or - the ultimate absurdity - must undertake activities in order to live. It is 'the metamorphosis of personal into material powers,' which has left behind 'abstract individuals, deprived of all true vitality,' so that man's own activity confronts him as an alien power. This penetrates to the very foundation of capitalist society. It goes beneath the economic and ideological forms of the 'reality of an inhuman existence.' On the other hand, it confronts this with the reality of human existence demanding radical action."

Herbert Marcuse, "Contributions to a Phenomenology of Historical Materialism," Telos 4 (Fall 1969): 6.

Marcuse on a Revolution of Affects

"[T]he existing society is reproduced not only in the mind, the consciousness of men, but also in their senses; and no persuasion, no theory, no reasoning can break this prison, unless the fixed, petrified sensibility of the individuals is 'dissolved,' opened to a new dimension on history, until the oppressive familiarity with the given object world is broken - broken in a second alienation: that from the alienated society."

Herbert Marcuse, Counterrevolution and Revolt (Boston: Beacon Press, 1972), pp. 16-17.

MLK on the Relationship Between Science and Religion

"Softmindedness often invades religion. This is why religion has sometimes rejected new truth with a dogmatic passion. Through edicts and bulls, inquisitions and excommunications, the church has attempted to prorogue truth and place an impenetrable stone wall in the path of the truth-seeker. The historical-philological criticism of the Bible is considered by the softminded as blasphemous, and reason is often looked upon as the exercise of a corrupt faculty. Softminded persons have revised the Beatitudes to read, 'Blessed are the pure in ignorance: for they shall see God.'"

"This has also led to a widespread belief that there is a conflict between science and religion. But this is not true. There may be a conflict between softminded religionists and toughminded scientists, but not between science and religion. Their respective worlds are different and their methods dissimilar. Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the march of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."

Martin Luther King, Jr. "A Tough Mind and a Tender Heart," The Strength to Love.

Marcuse on the Weakness in the Chain of Exploitation

"However, the exemplary force, the ideological power of the external revolution, can come to fruition only if the internal structure and cohesion of the capitalist system begin to disintegrate. The chain of exploitation must break at its strongest link."

Herbert Marcuse, “Solidarity” An Essay on Liberation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971), p. 82

Marcuse on the Sovreign's Enforcement of Language

"The existing society defines the transcending action on its, society's, own terms - a self-validating procedure, entirely legitimate, even necessary for this society: one of the most effective right of the Sovereign is the right to establish enforceable definitions of words."

"The language of the prevailing Law and Order, validated by the courts and by the police, is not only the voice but also the deed of suppression."

"the established vocabulary discriminates a priori against the opposition - it protects the establishment."

Herbert Marcuse, “Subverting Forces - in Transition” An Essay on Liberation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971), pp.73-77.

Marcuse on the Agression of the Oppressed

"This is the aggressiveness of those with the mutilated experience, with the false consciousness and the false needs, the victims of repression who, for their living, depend on the repressive society and repress the alternative. Their violence is that of the Establishment and takes as targets figures which, rightly or wrongly, seem to be different, and to represent an alternative."

Herbert Marcuse, “Subverting Forces - in Transition” An Essay on Liberation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971), p. 51.

Marcuse on Appropriation, Liberation, and the Intrinsic relation of Autonomy and Beauty

"No matter what sensibility art may wish to develop, no matter what Form it may wish to give to things, to life, no matter what vision it may wish to communicate - a radical change of experience is within the technical reaches of powers whose terrible imagination organizes the world in their own image and perpetuates, ever bigger and better, the mutilated experience."

"However, the productive forces, chained in the infrastructure of these societies, counteract this negativity in progress."

"Released from the bondage to exploitation, the imagination, sustained by the achievements of science, could turn its productive power to the radical reconstruction of experience and the universe of experience. In this reconstruction, the historical topos of the aesthetic would change: it would find expression in the transformation of the Lebenswelt - society as a work of art. This 'utopian' goal depends (as every stage in the development of freedom did) on a revolution at the obtainable level of liberation."

"In other words: the transformation is conceivable only as the way in which free men (or rather men in the practice of freeing themselves) shape their life in solidarity, and build an environment in which the struggle for existence loses its ugly and aggressive features. The Form of freedom is not merely self-determination and self-realization, but rather the determination and realization of goals which enhance, protect, and unite life on earth. And this autonomy would find expression not only in the mode of production and production relations but also in the individual relations among men, in their language and in their silence, in their gestures and their looks, in their sensitivity, in their love and hate. The beautiful would be an essential quality of their freedom."

Herbert Marcuse, “The New Sensibility” An Essay on Liberation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971), pp. 45-46.

Marcuse on Art's Capacity to Seemingly Transform Reality through Sublimation

"Form is the negation, the mastery of disorder, violence, suffering, even when it presents disorder, violence, suffering. This triumph of art is achieved by subjecting the content to the aesthetic order, which is autonomous in its exigencies. [...] The content is thereby transformed: it obtains a meaning (sense) which transcends the elements of the content, and this transcending order is the appearance of the beautiful as the truth of art."

Example - the tragedy of Oedipus, wherein evil is subordinated to poetic justice.

"With this restoration of order, the Form indeed achieves a catharsis - the terror and the pleasure of reality are purified. But the achievement is illusionary, false, fictitious: it remains within the dimension of art, a work of art; in reality, fear and frustration go on unabated (as they do, after the brief catharsis, in the psyche). This is perhaps the most telling expression of the contradiction, the self-defeat, built into art: the pacifying conquest of matter, the transfiguration of the object remain unreal - just as the revolution in perception remains unreal."

Herbert Marcuse, “The New Sensibility” An Essay on Liberation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971), pp. 43-44.

Marcuse on the Violence of Artistic Reconstruction

"The radical character, the "violence" of this reconstruction in contemporary art seems to indicate that it does not rebel against one style or another but against 'style' itself, against the art-form of art, against the traditional 'meaning' of art. [...] And yet, this entire de-formation is Form: anti-art has remained art, supplied, purchased, and contemplated as art. [...] Transforming the intent of art is self-defeating - a self-defeat built into the very structure of art."

"The very Form of art contradicts the effort to do away with the segregation of art to a 'second reality,' to translate the truth of the productive imagination into the first reality."

Herbert Marcuse, “The New Sensibility” An Essay on Liberation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971), pp. 40-42.

Marcuse on the Function of Art

"It is precisely the Form by virtue of which art transcends the given reality, works in the established reality against the established reality; and this transcendent element is inherent in art, in the artistic dimension. Art alters experience by reconstructing the objects of experience - reconstructing them in word, tone, image. Why? Evidently, the 'language' of art must communicate a truth, an objectivity which is not accessible to ordinary language and ordinary experience. This exigency explodes in the situation of contemporary art."

Herbert Marcuse, “The New Sensibility” An Essay on Liberation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971), p. 40.

Marcuse on Perception and Revolution

"the revolution must be at the same time a revolution in perception which will accompany the material and intellectual reconstruction of society, creating the new aesthetic environment."

Herbert Marcuse, “The New Sensibility” An Essay on Liberation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971), p. 37.

Marcuse on Political Protests

"The political protest, assuming a total character, reaches into a dimension which, as aesthetic dimension, has been essentially apolitical. And the political protest activates in this dimension precisely the foundational, organic elements: the human sensibility which rebels against the dictates of repressive reason, and, in doing so, invokes the sensuous power of the imagination."

Herbert Marcuse, “The New Sensibility” An Essay on Liberation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971), p. 30.

Maruse on Sensibility and the Imagination

"The order and organization of class society, which have shaped the sensibility and the reason of man, have also shaped the freedom of the imagination."

Herbert Marcuse, "The New Sensibility” An Essay on Liberation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971), p. 29.

Marcuse - Aesthetics as a Social Force

"the aesthetic dimension can serve as a sort of gauge for a free society. [...] For the aesthetic needs have their own social content: they are the claims of the human organism, mind and body, for a dimension of fulfillment which can be created only in the struggle against the institutions which, by their very functioning, deny and violate these claims."

Herbert Marcuse, “The New Sensibility” An Essay on Liberation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971), p. 27.

Marcuse on a Truly Free Democracy

"We would have to conclude that liberation would mean subversion against the will and against the prevailing interests of the great majority of the people. In the false identification of social and individual needs, in the deep-rooted, 'organic' adaptation of the people to a terrible but profitably functioning society, lie the limits of democratic persuasion and evolution. On the overcoming of these limits depends the establishment of democracy."

Herbert Marcuse, “A Biological Foundation for Socialism” An Essay on Liberation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971), p. 17.

Marcuse on the Evolving Nature of Capitalism

"Capitalism reproduces itself by transforming itself, and this transformation is mainly in the improvement of exploitation. Do exploitation and domination cease to be what they are and what they do to man if they are no longer suffered, if they are 'compensated' by previously unknown comforts?"

Herbert Marcuse, “A Biological Foundation for Socialism” An Essay on Liberation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971), p. 13.

Marcuse on the Tie Between Economics and Second Nature

"The so-called consumer economy and the politics of corporate capitalism have created a second nature of man which ties him libidinally and aggressively to the commodity form. The need for possessing, consuming, handling, and constantly renewing the gadgets, devices, instruments, engines, offered to and imposed upon the people, for using these wares even at the danger of one's own destruction, has become a 'biological' need in the sense just defined. The second nature of man thus militates against any change that would disrupt and perhaps even abolish this dependence of man on a market ever more densely filled with merchandise - abolish his existence as a consumer consuming himself in buying and selling. The needs generated by this system are thus eminently stabilizing, conservative needs: the counterrevolution anchored in the instinctual structure."

Herbert Marcuse, “A Biological Foundation for Socialism” An Essay on Liberation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971), p. 11.