Untitled Document

The Book of Daniel is not a balanced book. It believes that God's people are meant to be in places of influence and power where decisions are made that impact the lives of people; actually that impact the nations.

Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego believe they are not in the palace of the most powerful empire on the face of the earth by accident. They are there because that is where God wants them. God wants God's people to be advising kings.

Daniel is not the only book in the Bible, but this is the assumption of the Book of Daniel. God does not want God's people in a spiritual utopia somewhere where everybody thinks alike, everybody loves one another, everybody is sanctified, and everybody is a saint.

The lion’s den is a concrete part of Daniel's story, but the lion’s den is also a metaphor. The lion’s den and the fiery furnace are metaphors. The lion’s den is wherever you work; the fiery furnace is wherever you serve on a board; the lion’s den is wherever you volunteer; the fiery furnace is wherever you in your life have access and influence.

The Book of Daniel believes God wants you in the palace, and the palace is a dangerous place for God's people to be because the palace worships other gods…gods of power, wealth, success, status. Things that are not bad in their place, but when we worship them, they become idols.

One of the big questions in the Book of Daniel is this: As the people of God, as godly women and men, what can we compromise and what can't we compromise?

In fact, here is a question – are there things that, as God's people, we ought to be willing to compromise in order to have access to influence and power? In order to be in the palace where decisions are being made that impact the nations?

And are there things that, even if we get thrown into a den of lions, we just cannot compromise as godly women and men?

These are tough questions. I could ask them of myself in the little palace of the United Methodist Church where I live. What should I be willing to compromise to keep my influence and access within United Methodism? What may I not compromise? When do I need to risk the lion’s den or the fiery furnace instead of compromising? When am I just being unreasonable or nit-picking?

There are clearly things that Daniel was willing to compromise on. Here's a few of them.

Number One: Daniel was willing to compromise when it came to ego. Understand ego is not a bad thing. That's why his giving it up was a compromise. Giving up bad things is not a compromise. Giving up a good thing is a compromise.

People getting the credit and recognition they deserve is a justice issue. Have you ever been in a situation where another person took credit for your work, maybe for your ideas? Someone profited off your hard work without giving you credit? It is not a good feeling.

When you read the Book of Daniel it seems clear that Daniel was smarter than the kings he served.

Daniel was willing for them to get the recognition and glory. This was an injustice to Daniel, but it was an injustice he was willing to compromise on.

Number 2: Daniel was willing to compromise when it came to control. Control is a good thing. The more control we can have over our lives and our destiny the better. The more control we have and the less control others can exercise over us the better. We believe in freedom; we believe in democracy.

Daniel was willing to compromise on the control he was willing to give others over his life.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has a diagnosis. It is a condition called Oppositional Defiant Disorder. It occurs in children as young as three years old and among adolescents. Here are the symptoms of Oppositional Defiant Disorder according to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry:

Here's a question? What percentage of school-aged children do you think the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry says have Oppositional Defiant Disorder? Turn to someone sitting near you and discuss this for one minute.

OK. How many of you are parents, raise your hand. How many of you who are parents said 100%.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry says: "All children are oppositional from time to time, particularly when tired, hungry, stressed or upset. They may argue, talk back, disobey, and defy parents, teachers, and other adults. Oppositional behavior is often a normal part of development for two to three year olds and early adolescents. However, openly uncooperative and hostile behavior becomes a serious concern when it is so frequent and consistent that it stands out when compared with other children of the same age and developmental level and when it affects the child’s social, family and academic life." Up to 16 % of school aged children are diagnosable as having ODD.

I know a psychiatrist who practiced here in Washington, DC, who told me that some of his patients who had difficulty finding work satisfaction and long-term employment were adults who suffered from an adult version of ODD.

The freedom for others not to have control over our lives and destiny is a good thing. For some of us it is very hard to compromise on this. Daniel was willing to compromise.

Number 3: And this one is a big deal for me, Daniel was willing to compromise when it came to others' perception of him. I hate this compromise.

Daniel was willing to have others misunderstand him. The king called him Belteshazzar. In Daniel 4:8 the king is speaking and he says: "At last Daniel came in before me – he who was named Belteshazzar after the name of my god, and who is endowed with a spirit of the holy gods – and I told him the dream."

Daniel became a priest in a religion that worshiped gods he did not believe in. Daniel was willing to be called the name of a god he did not believe in. He was willing for others to see him as possessed by the spirit of gods he did not believe in.

He was willing to compromise his perceived identity. He was willing for others to see him as the priest of a religion he did not believe in, as a worshipper of gods he did not worship, as possessed by a spirit of gods he did not honor. He was willing to be profoundly misunderstood.

Do you know that as soon as I am introduced to someone as a minister I want to explain to people what kind of minister I am not? As soon as I am introduced as a Methodist I want to explain to people what kind of Methodist I am not.

I was at an event with a number of gay leaders from African countries. I was the only clergyperson there. When the gay leaders from Africa found out I was a clergyperson they avoided me like the plague. Wherever I went in the room, they were on the other side of the room. After what happened in Uganda this week you understand what gay people in Africa assume about American clergy.

One of the gay African leaders eventually spoke with me and he told me that he did not know one clergyperson in his country who did not believe all gay people should be in prison. Not one. I spent the entire event wanting to say to every African I met, I'm not who you think I am.

Daniel was willing to be considered a priest of a religion he did not believe in, in order to serve the God he did believe in. He was willing to compromise on the opinion of others.

One more kind of compromise that Daniel was apparently willing to make I just discovered rereading Daniel this month.

When Daniel got to the palace, Daniel 1:8 says: "But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the royal rations of food and wine so he asked the palace master to allow him not to defile himself."

Daniel 1:11-12 says: "The Daniel asked the guard whom the palace master had appointed over Daniel {Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego}: "Please test your servants for ten days. Let us be given vegetables to eat and water to drink. You can then compare our appearance with the appearance of the young men who eat the royal rations…."

Some of us disagree about the significance of this. I think the issue was eating kosher. Vegetables and water are always kosher, meat and wine isn't. So Daniel's way of keeping kosher was to eat vegetables and drink water.

Others argue that this is about a healthy diet, vegetarianism, and abstinence from alcohol. I posted on my Facebook status this week an article by Bishop Sally Dyck saying we need a new set of kosher food rules.

But whichever it was, this is what I noticed reading Daniel this time. Daniel 10:2-3 says (this is three kings later. The king is now Cyprus; so its lots of years later): Daniel 10:3 says: "At that time I, Daniel, had been mourning for three weeks. I had eaten no rich food, no meat or wine had entered my mouth, and I had not anointed myself at all, for the full three weeks."

If Daniel had fasted from rich food, meat, or wine for three weeks during a time of mourning, it must mean that by this time in his life Daniel was no longer on his vegetarian abstinence diet.

Daniel was apparently willing to adjust his diet. When you are a missionary you eat and drink what the people you are trying to reach eat and drink.

Daniel was willing to compromise his personal scruples. At least that is my conclusion.

Daniel, because he had access to influence and power, also had enemies. His enemies knew he prayed. They persuaded the king to make a law that anyone who prayed to any one else, divine or human, other than the king for 30 days would be thrown into a den of lions.

The king established the law. Daniel prayed three times a day. He continued to pray three times a day during those 30 days. He continued to pray in his upper room that had windows. He refused to hide his prayers in his own home. His enemies had him arrested.

The king tried everything he could to save his friend Daniel, but the law was the law and not even the king could overturn it. This is one of the downsides of being the king. Sometimes you end up enforcing laws that you don't believe in.

So Daniel was thrown into the lion’s den. The king prayed for him all night long. God shut the lion’s mouths.

Daniel who was willing to compromise his ego, willing to compromise his control, willing to compromise other's perceptions of him, willing to compromise his scruples, was not willing to compromise his prayer life.

I have been thinking all week, asking myself what would be the equivalent in our world today to Daniel's prayer life. What is it that we may not compromise in our lives in our time and place? What is the equivalent of praying three times a day for us?

I suspect this may turn out to be an unsatisfying message for some of us because I am raising a question I do not have the answer to for you.

I puzzled all week long. Then when I was walking into church early yesterday morning, I suddenly realized what I thought it might be for me.

I am not going to say what it is for me because I don't want my enemies to pass a law against it.

Here's the question – what is it in your soul and life that even if someone passed a law against it so that you would be thrown in a den of lions, you could not compromise it?

Part of the message of the Book of Daniel is that it is pretty important not to confuse the things we ought to compromise and the things we can't compromise.

And I can't tell you the difference for you. All I can tell you is that Daniel knew. And you and I need to know.

Because it would be a heck of a thing to go to the lion’s den for something that really doesn't matter all that much. And it would be a hell of a thing to lose our souls merely to escape the lions' den.

What is so essential to the image of God in you, so eternal in you, that you can not compromise it?

The message of the lion’s den and of the fiery furnace is that if we know what is so essential that we can not compromise it, the lions will not be able to destroy it in us, the flames will not be able to burn it out of us. This is the truth of Daniel. This is the truth of cross and resurrection. This is the truth of Jesus.

All week long I'm been thinking of the things Daniel was willing to compromise that I sometimes think I would rather get thrown in the den of lions than compromise about. They matter but they only matter for today.

All week long I've been worrying about the things I have been willing to compromise that maybe I am not meant to compromise.

My wish for you is that this question from the Book of Daniel will bother you this coming week even half as much as it has bothered me.

"Children with Oppositional Defiant Disorder," Facts for Families, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at http://aacap.org/page.ww?name=Children+with+Oppositional+Defiant+Disorder&section=Facts+for+Families.

Ibid.

Sally Dyck, "Having rules about food can promote health, bless others" at http://umportal.org/article.asp?id=7573.

Foundry United Methodist Church Rev. Dean Snyder, Senior Minister
“Life in the Lion’s Den: Sermons about Daniel” Sunday, January 30, 2011
Rev. Dean Snyder	“Daniel: Life in the Lion’s Den” Daniel 6:14-28 The Book of Daniel is not a balanced book. It believes that God's people are meant to be in places of influence and power where decisions are made that impact the lives of people; actually that impact the nations. Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego believe they are not in the palace of the most powerful empire on the face of the earth by accident. They are there because that is where God wants them. God wants God's people to be advising kings. Daniel is not the only book in the Bible, but this is the assumption of the Book of Daniel. God does not want God's people in a spiritual utopia somewhere where everybody thinks alike, everybody loves one another, everybody is sanctified, and everybody is a saint. The lion’s den is a concrete part of Daniel's story, but the lion’s den is also a metaphor. The lion’s den and the fiery furnace are metaphors. The lion’s den is wherever you work; the fiery furnace is wherever you serve on a board; the lion’s den is wherever you volunteer; the fiery furnace is wherever you in your life have access and influence. The Book of Daniel believes God wants you in the palace, and the palace is a dangerous place for God's people to be because the palace worships other gods…gods of power, wealth, success, status. Things that are not bad in their place, but when we worship them, they become idols. One of the big questions in the Book of Daniel is this: As the people of God, as godly women and men, what can we compromise and what can't we compromise? What can we compromise and what can't we compromise? In fact, here is a question – are there things that, as God's people, we ought to be willing to compromise in order to have access to influence and power? In order to be in the palace where decisions are being made that impact the nations? And are there things that, even if we get thrown into a den of lions, we just cannot compromise as godly women and men? These are tough questions. I could ask them of myself in the little palace of the United Methodist Church where I live. What should I be willing to compromise to keep my influence and access within United Methodism? What may I not compromise? When do I need to risk the lion’s den or the fiery furnace instead of compromising? When am I just being unreasonable or nit-picking? There are clearly things that Daniel was willing to compromise on. Here's a few of them. Number One: Daniel was willing to compromise when it came to ego. Understand ego is not a bad thing. That's why his giving it up was a compromise. Giving up bad things is not a compromise. Giving up a good thing is a compromise. People getting the credit and recognition they deserve is a justice issue. Have you ever been in a situation where another person took credit for your work, maybe for your ideas? Someone profited off your hard work without giving you credit? It is not a good feeling. When you read the Book of Daniel it seems clear that Daniel was smarter than the kings he served. Daniel was willing for them to get the recognition and glory. This was an injustice to Daniel, but it was an injustice he was willing to compromise on. Number 2: Daniel was willing to compromise when it came to control. Control is a good thing. The more control we can have over our lives and our destiny the better. The more control we have and the less control others can exercise over us the better. We believe in freedom; we believe in democracy. Daniel was willing to compromise on the control he was willing to give others over his life. Compromising on control is not always easy. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has a diagnosis. It is a condition called Oppositional Defiant Disorder. It occurs in children as young as three years old and among adolescents. Here are the symptoms of Oppositional Defiant Disorder according to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: Frequent temper tantrums Excessive arguing with adults Often questioning rules Active defiance and refusal to comply with adult requests and rules Deliberate attempts to annoy or upset people Blaming others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior Often being touchy or easily annoyed by others Frequent anger and resentment Mean and hateful talking when upset Spiteful attitude and revenge seeking Here's a question? What percentage of school-aged children do you think the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry says have Oppositional Defiant Disorder? Turn to someone sitting near you and discuss this for one minute. OK. How many of you are parents, raise your hand. How many of you who are parents said 100%. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry says: "All children are oppositional from time to time, particularly when tired, hungry, stressed or upset. They may argue, talk back, disobey, and defy parents, teachers, and other adults. Oppositional behavior is often a normal part of development for two to three year olds and early adolescents. However, openly uncooperative and hostile behavior becomes a serious concern when it is so frequent and consistent that it stands out when compared with other children of the same age and developmental level and when it affects the child’s social, family and academic life." Up to 16 % of school aged children are diagnosable as having ODD. I know a psychiatrist who practiced here in Washington, DC, who told me that some of his patients who had difficulty finding work satisfaction and long-term employment were adults who suffered from an adult version of ODD. The freedom for others not to have control over our lives and destiny is a good thing. For some of us it is very hard to compromise on this. Daniel was willing to compromise. Number 3: And this one is a big deal for me, Daniel was willing to compromise when it came to others' perception of him. I hate this compromise. Daniel was willing to have others misunderstand him. The king called him Belteshazzar. In Daniel 4:8 the king is speaking and he says: "At last Daniel came in before me – he who was named Belteshazzar after the name of my god, and who is endowed with a spirit of the holy gods – and I told him the dream." Daniel became a priest in a religion that worshiped gods he did not believe in. Daniel was willing to be called the name of a god he did not believe in. He was willing for others to see him as possessed by the spirit of gods he did not believe in. He was willing to compromise his perceived identity. He was willing for others to see him as the priest of a religion he did not believe in, as a worshipper of gods he did not worship, as possessed by a spirit of gods he did not honor. He was willing to be profoundly misunderstood. Do you know that as soon as I am introduced to someone as a minister I want to explain to people what kind of minister I am not? As soon as I am introduced as a Methodist I want to explain to people what kind of Methodist I am not. I was at an event with a number of gay leaders from African countries. I was the only clergyperson there. When the gay leaders from Africa found out I was a clergyperson they avoided me like the plague. Wherever I went in the room, they were on the other side of the room. After what happened in Uganda this week you understand what gay people in Africa assume about American clergy. One of the gay African leaders eventually spoke with me and he told me that he did not know one clergyperson in his country who did not believe all gay people should be in prison. Not one. I spent the entire event wanting to say to every African I met, I'm not who you think I am. Daniel was willing to be considered a priest of a religion he did not believe in, in order to serve the God he did believe in. He was willing to compromise on the opinion of others. One more kind of compromise that Daniel was apparently willing to make I just discovered rereading Daniel this month. When Daniel got to the palace, Daniel 1:8 says: "But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the royal rations of food and wine so he asked the palace master to allow him not to defile himself." Daniel 1:11-12 says: "The Daniel asked the guard whom the palace master had appointed over Daniel {Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego}: "Please test your servants for ten days. Let us be given vegetables to eat and water to drink. You can then compare our appearance with the appearance of the young men who eat the royal rations…." Some of us disagree about the significance of this. I think the issue was eating kosher. Vegetables and water are always kosher, meat and wine isn't. So Daniel's way of keeping kosher was to eat vegetables and drink water. Others argue that this is about a healthy diet, vegetarianism, and abstinence from alcohol. I posted on my Facebook status this week an article by Bishop Sally Dyck saying we need a new set of kosher food rules. But whichever it was, this is what I noticed reading Daniel this time. Daniel 10:2-3 says (this is three kings later. The king is now Cyprus; so its lots of years later): Daniel 10:3 says: "At that time I, Daniel, had been mourning for three weeks. I had eaten no rich food, no meat or wine had entered my mouth, and I had not anointed myself at all, for the full three weeks." If Daniel had fasted from rich food, meat, or wine for three weeks during a time of mourning, it must mean that by this time in his life Daniel was no longer on his vegetarian abstinence diet. Daniel was apparently willing to adjust his diet. When you are a missionary you eat and drink what the people you are trying to reach eat and drink. Daniel was willing to compromise his personal scruples. At least that is my conclusion. So here's the question: What was Daniel unwilling to compromise? This is the part of the story we heard read today: Daniel, chapter 6. Daniel, because he had access to influence and power, also had enemies. His enemies knew he prayed. They persuaded the king to make a law that anyone who prayed to any one else, divine or human, other than the king for 30 days would be thrown into a den of lions. The king established the law. Daniel prayed three times a day. He continued to pray three times a day during those 30 days. He continued to pray in his upper room that had windows. He refused to hide his prayers in his own home. His enemies had him arrested. The king tried everything he could to save his friend Daniel, but the law was the law and not even the king could overturn it. This is one of the downsides of being the king. Sometimes you end up enforcing laws that you don't believe in. So Daniel was thrown into the lion’s den. The king prayed for him all night long. God shut the lion’s mouths. Daniel who was willing to compromise his ego, willing to compromise his control, willing to compromise other's perceptions of him, willing to compromise his scruples, was not willing to compromise his prayer life. I have been thinking all week, asking myself what would be the equivalent in our world today to Daniel's prayer life. What is it that we may not compromise in our lives in our time and place? What is the equivalent of praying three times a day for us? I suspect this may turn out to be an unsatisfying message for some of us because I am raising a question I do not have the answer to for you. I puzzled all week long. Then when I was walking into church early yesterday morning, I suddenly realized what I thought it might be for me. I am not going to say what it is for me because I don't want my enemies to pass a law against it. Here's the question – what is it in your soul and life that even if someone passed a law against it so that you would be thrown in a den of lions, you could not compromise it? Part of the message of the Book of Daniel is that it is pretty important not to confuse the things we ought to compromise and the things we can't compromise. And I can't tell you the difference for you. All I can tell you is that Daniel knew. And you and I need to know. Because it would be a heck of a thing to go to the lion’s den for something that really doesn't matter all that much. And it would be a hell of a thing to lose our souls merely to escape the lions' den. What is so essential to the image of God in you, so eternal in you, that you can not compromise it? The message of the lion’s den and of the fiery furnace is that if we know what is so essential that we can not compromise it, the lions will not be able to destroy it in us, the flames will not be able to burn it out of us. This is the truth of Daniel. This is the truth of cross and resurrection. This is the truth of Jesus. All week long I'm been thinking of the things Daniel was willing to compromise that I sometimes think I would rather get thrown in the den of lions than compromise about. They matter but they only matter for today. All week long I've been worrying about the things I have been willing to compromise that maybe I am not meant to compromise. My wish for you is that this question from the Book of Daniel will bother you this coming week even half as much as it has bothered me. "Children with Oppositional Defiant Disorder," Facts for Families, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at http://aacap.org/page.ww?name=Children+with+Oppositional+Defiant+Disorder&section=Facts+for+Families. Ibid. Sally Dyck, "Having rules about food can promote health, bless others" at http://umportal.org/article.asp?id=7573. www.foundryumc.org