Recognizing the Spirit ~ 10/24/2010 ~ Proper 25 ~ 30th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Second Sunday after Pentecost.

10/24/2010 ~ Proper 25 ~ 30th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Second Sunday after Pentecost ~ Joel 2:23-32; Psalm 65; Sirach 35:12-17 or Jeremiah 14:7-10, 19-22; Psalm 84:1-7; 2 Timothy 4:6-8, 16-18; Luke 18:9-14.

Recognizing the Spirit

“I will pour out my spirit / on all flesh, on all humankind; / your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, / your elders, all of them, / shall have prophetic dreams, / and your young people shall see visions...” — Joel 2:28b.


Constantin Stanislavski was a Russian actor and director of plays who lived from 1863 to 1938. He is probably not widely known outside of theater circles but his name is important to theater professionals.

On the other hand, it’s likely most people have heard what Stanislavski did. He invented the ‘Method System’ of acting. ‘The System’ has had such famous adherents as Marlon Brando, Anne Bankcroft, Robert De Niro, Nicole Kidman, Paul Newman and Cate Blanchett to name but a few.

What ‘The Method’ really does is invite those who study it to a holistic approach to acting. It asks actors to build a character, first from the outside in and then again from the inside out. This system expects an actor to delve into the character’s psychology, class, education, behavior, familial life and spiritual life— engage completely in who a character might be. Stanislavski sometimes described ‘The Method’ as ‘Spiritual Realism’— Spiritual Realism. (Slight pause.)

Once of my mentors in theater, Louis Simon, actually studied with Stanislavski in Moscow. Simon was near seventy when I met him. He was a Jewish boy who grew up in Salt Lake City surrounded by Mormons, studied at Yale in the late 1920s and just when the depression hit left for Russia, a letter of introduction to the great director in his hand.

In pre-Soviet times Stanislavski had been a friend of both Tolstoy and Chekhov but was, by then, the moving force behind the great Moscow Art Theater. My friend never tired of telling the story of his first encounter with Stanislavski.

Louis presented his credential to a protective stage manager at the theater and was told to sit in the back of the house, to say nothing and to just watch the rehearsal in progress. Stanislavski, the master, would find time for him at some point.

Now, the scene being rehearsed on that day took place backstage at an American vaudeville show. The situation called for a group of chorus girls to be chattering, gossiping among themselves. Having finished their dialogue, the action then called for the chorines to dance out of the sight of the audience watching the play but, therefore, onto the unseen vaudeville stage, into the sight of another audience watching the vaudeville show.

Now, Stanislavski was a big stickler for realism. He realized these were supposed to be simple, young chorus girls. So, he had instructed many of the actresses to chew gum as they spoke their lines.

Again, stressing realism, he also understood, once they had finished their dialogue, they would be dancing onto another stage and on that stage it would be inappropriate for them to be chewing gum. After all, even if the audience for his play could not see the girls as they danced at the unseen vaudeville house, they would be seen— really seen— by this other audience for whom they would be dancing.

Stanislavski was stumped. Given that they should be chewing gum backstage, he could not figure out how the girls might get rid of their gum before they danced onto this unseen stage. (Slight pause.)

Suddenly, Stanislavski turned toward the back of the theater and shouted at the top of his lungs: “Where is my American?” He, of course, meant my friend, Louis.

Louis cautiously moved to the front of the house. “You see what’s going on here?” asked the great director. Louis nodded. “They are chewing gum, as they should be, given who they are. But they can’t be doing that once they are dancing on stage, yes?” Louis nodded.

“You are an American, yes?” Louis nodded. “You have seen a little vaudeville, yes?” Louis nodded. “How... would they get rid of the gum?”

Now, as stated, Stanislavski was a stickler for realism. He had built a backstage set that looked like a real backstage area. So, on one the side of the set for the play Stanislavski was rehearsing there was an entrance to that vaudeville stage— the side of a proscenium arch.

Thinking quickly, Louis leaped up onto the stage with the actresses who were standing around waiting for an answer about what to do with their gum. He move to the side of the set and pounded on what would have been the proscenium about belt high. “Each of them must take the gum out of their mouth and stick it right on the arch about here as they dance by,” he announced triumphantly.

Needless to say, in a flash, Louis had sized up who these people might be and, given what they needed to do, projected their likely action. Also, needless to say, he simply thought it through. He was present in the moment and, thereby, aware of what was necessary. (Slight pause.)

Stanislavski, seeing this, nodded appreciatively. “So, you have come to study with me, yes?” Louis nodded. “This... will be a fruitful time, I think,” said the Russian. (Slight pause.)

And these words are found in the work known as Joel: “I will pour out my spirit / on all flesh, on all humankind; / your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, / your elders, all of them, / shall have prophetic dreams, / and your young people shall see visions...” (Slight pause.)

As Christians, we make all kinds of statements about the Spirit of God. But, as Christians, there is one primary claim we make. In Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ, God broke into the fabric of the existence of humanity in a special, specific way, broke into time in a way which helps us see the grace God offers.

In short, the claim is simple. Christ lives. Christ is with us. The Spirit of God is present to humanity and the fullness and the reality of the Christ confirms this. But how can we, how do we, how are we able to be aware of that grace, that Spirit? (Slight pause.)

I think in looking at the words of the prophet Joel, there are few better examples which proclaiming the nature of the enduring grace God offers. And please remember, from a Biblical prospective prophecy has nothing to do with foretelling the future. Prophecy is about sharing a word concerning the truth God offers to us.

Indeed, the gist of the passage is clear. No matter how dark the present moment, unforgiving judgment does not have the final word. God’s final and gracious Word is one of hope and redemption and grace.

Still, this begs the question what should we being doing with that? (Slight pause.) I want to suggest that Louis Simon had it right in his first encounter with Stanislavski. Think the situation through.

Think things through from the outside in and then again from the inside out. Think any and all situations through. But, most importantly, think through the situation called life with God. How is the Spirit a part of that? What does that feel like? (Slight pause.)

I want to suggest that The Spirit is with us when we hope, when we praise, when we love. The Spirit is not found when we buy into fear, anger, distrust or ignorance. When we buy into fear, anger, distrust, ignorance we are not concentrating on the Spirit and, just as important, we are not concentrating on healthy relationships.

Spirituality, you see, is based on healthy relationships. We meet the Holy in relationships. The late practical theologian, Henri Nouwen, writes that spiritual life means (quote): “the nurturing of the eternal amid the temporal, the lasting within the passing”— the lasting within the passing.

Hence, we need to both be welcoming the day, each and every day, and be welcoming to the one next to us. We need live fully in the present moment, be present to one another, while acknowledging eternal life promised by God as real. This is a spiritual path. (Slight pause.)

Will, as the reading suggested, God pour out God’s own Spirit on us? (Slight pause.) I maintain the Spirt of God is with us now and is with us for eternity. I maintain this is a key message of the Gospel, a message clearly communicated by the resurrection, a message made known to us in the living Christ.

I believe the challenge for us is not one of searching for the Spirit. The Spirit is with us. The challenge for us is doing the work— the psychological, educational, behavioral work— which will lead us toward both being more aware of the presence of the Spirit of God and enhance our spiritual life as we find ways to cooperate with the Spirit of God— the Spirit of God, which is always present to us. Amen.

10/24/2010
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York.

ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Benediction. This, then, is an précis of what the pastor said before the blessing: “I said this earlier— the Hebrew word Ruach means Spirit, it means breadth. This should be a reminder to us that our belief is in a living God who is present to us.” [1]

[1] At the Children’s time the Mr. Tom Rasely, our Music Associate played on a set of bongo drums and the Pastor invited all the children and some adults who had been invited forward to experience this to place their hands under the drums as Tom played them. They were able to feel the air “exhale” from the drums. The Pastor noted that Scripture tells us that everything that lives should praise God and, therefore, even these drums which breathe praise God. The pastor then pointed out the Hebrew word for breath, Ruach, was the same as the word for Spirit. So, perhaps you could also feel the breath of God in the drums.

Covenant of the Heart ~ 10/17/2010 ~ 29th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-First Sunday after Pentecost (Proper 24)

10/17/2010 ~ 29th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-First Sunday after Pentecost (Proper 24) ~ Jeremiah 31:27-34; Psalm 119:97-104; Genesis 32:22-31; Psalm 121; 2 Timothy 3:14-4:5; Luke 18:1-8.

Covenant of the Heart

“...this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my Law within them, in their minds and I will write it on their hearts. I will be their God; they shall be my people.” — Jeremiah 31:33.


Fiddler on the Roof is the famous Broadway musical set in the Tsarist Russia of 1905. It is based on the short stories of Sholem Aleichem, the pen name of the writer Salomon Rabinovich. All of the stories by this author were written in Yiddish and Sholem Aleichem means “peace be with you” in Yiddish.

Fiddler concentrates mostly on one of those stories, the tale of Tevye, the dairy farmer, his wife and their five daughters. In the course of the narrative we see and hear about this family and their attempts to maintain both familial traditions and religious traditions while outside influences encroach upon their lives and the world around them changes in drastic ways.

The three eldest daughters in the family are strong-willed young women. The choice of husband each makes moves them away from the traditions to which the people in this small town on the Steeps of Russia are accustomed.

Further, these are turbulent times in the reign of the Tsar. Indeed, those sitting in the audience who are seeing and hearing this work and who have any sense of history know that, twelve years after the Tsar evicts these Jews by edict from their village, their town, Anatevka— those sitting in the audience with any sense of history know the very same government will be overthrown by the Communist Revolution.

Despite the forces of change or perhaps because of them, the story keeps coming back to the people in the town, keeps coming back to the personal, keeps coming back to the individual. Yes, the people are battered by change and by changing times, battered by forces beyond their control. But they find their anchor in the intimate relationships among their family and their friends in the village, relationships which have been built over time.

This concept is well illustrated when Tevye explains to Golde, his wife of 25 years, that their eldest daughter wants to get married. She has rejected the arranged marriage they envisioned for her, arranged marriage being normal, the custom in the village. Instead, she wants to get married to the one she loves.

In song, Tevye and his wife reflect on what it is love might mean. Tevye asks Golde: “Do you love me?” Golde responds: “Do I what?” In his heartfelt, gruff way Teyve asks again: “Do you love me?”

Goldie thinks all the change happening around them has overwhelmed her husband. “Do I love you? / With our daughters getting married / And this trouble in the town / You’re upset, you’re worn out / Go inside, go lie down! / Maybe it’s indigestion.”

Tevye will not be deterred: “Golde, I’m asking you a question... Do you love me?”

In responding, Golde becomes a little more reflective and even practical about their time together: “Do I love you? / For twenty-five years I’ve washed your clothes / Cooked your meals, cleaned your house / Given you children, milked the cow / After twenty-five years, why talk about love right now?”

Turning to some unseen audience (it is God to whom she speaks?), she adds this: “For twenty-five years I’ve lived with him / Fought him, starved with him / Twenty-five years my bed is his / If that’s not love, what is?” (Slight pause.)

As the song concludes, together they admit that they love one another. “It doesn’t change a thing / But even so / After twenty-five years / It’s nice to know.” Hence, they end with this duet, they end as one, voicing a singular thought concerning their long term relationship. What developed between them over time clearly is love by any definition. (Slight pause.)

We live in our own tumultuous times today. Indeed, the well known comedienne and television personality Whoopi Goldberg just published a book titled: Is It Just Me? Or Is It Nuts Out There? And maybe we do live in a time which feels that way, a little nuts, with people acting just a little off... sometimes more than a little.

I recently heard the well known author Malcolm Gladwell tell a story about giving a lecture in a wealthy, suburban community. Best known for populist books that explore change in society, in this talk, as in his books, he offered facts and figures about population groups and economic conditions. Gladwell pointed out to this wealthy, suburban audience that in the 1950s the tax rate for the wealthy ran just over 90%. [1]

The audience refused to believe him. Some in the crowd started to hiss. [2] And, since it was a dinner function at which he was speaking, someone even tossed a roll in his direction. The reaction Gladwell experienced was one of anger, perhaps even fear— maybe the other way around— fear first, then anger. But why be fearful or angry? Gladwell did not make up these facts. It’s the truth.

The income tax rate for the wealthy in each and every year of the decade called the 1950s was just over 90%. You can look it up. And the wealthy were not being picked on. Whereas the lowest tax rate today is 10%, in the 1950s, the lowest rate was 20%.

But when someone throws a dinner roll at you for merely stating a fact, it proves that not only do we live in tumultuous times. It proves Whoopi Goldberg may be right: it feels like it’s nuts out there.

It seems to me that when people refuse to pay attention to facts, as did this audience, when people are willfully ignorant about the facts, as this audience certainly seemed to be, the result is often fear and anger. That is what happened, of course, in Tsarist Russia— a toxic combination of ignorance, fear and anger.

People were fearful about and fearful of the Jewish minority. But they did not really know the Jews. As a minority in that time and in that place, Jews were often isolated in small villages and ghettos. The ignorance about them morphed into fear. Fear morphed into anger. Anger then transform into violence.

The pogroms, the edicts from the Tsar and later from Central Committee of the Soviet Union, took center stage. In short, ignorance, fear and anger translated not just into violence but into systemic violence. All this was a result of failing to know the facts but, perhaps more tragically, wilfully ignoring the facts. (Slight pause.)

And these words are from the work known as Jeremiah: “...this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my Law within them, in their minds and I will write it on their hearts. I will be their God; they shall be my people.” (Slight pause.)

What is love? Is love infatuation? Is it an attraction? Is love simply an emotional high? Or does love, as Tevye and Golde suggest, have its real basis in deeply knowing someone, have its real basis in growth? (Slight pause.)

Please notice, that the promise of God is to write knowledge— to write the knowledge of God on both the hearts of people and on the minds. Indeed, the claim God makes is that we are known so well by God that this intimacy produces forgiveness for our failings. Hence, perhaps the thing to which we need to be open is to also grow in our own intimacy with God, in our own knowledge of God.

This is clear: when growth is abandoned or simply ignored, fear is embraced. Covenant love is the opposite of that. Covenant love, as proclaimed by and in Scripture, is commitment to understanding, commitment to respect, commitment... to growth.

Love, you see, true love is not merely an infatuation nor is it only an attraction nor is it simply an emotional high. Love is something which develops and grows.

Why? How? Love comes from knowledge, cumulative knowledge, of others, knowledge which is intentionally pursued. When commitment to covenant love is made, deep, enduring love develops. When commitment to covenant love is made, growth happens. (Slight pause.)

I want to suggest that the love God writes on our minds and on our hearts is already there, already present. Too often we ignore it instead of embracing it. And there is only one way to embrace it. To love deeply and to love over time we must learn love by engaging it over time.

One more point: God starts with one assumption— that we will always be loved by God. Indeed, that is one reason why God insist we are forgiven— because we are loved.

Hence, the challenge for us is simple: God has made a commitment to us and invites us to be committed also. Will we become committed to loving God? Will we become committed to covenant love, covenant love which is embodied by growth? Amen.

10/17/2010
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY

ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Benediction. This, then, is an précis of what the pastor said before the blessing: “The thought for the day in the bulletin is from H. Richard Neibuhr. He said: ‘Christianity is permanent revolution (here he uses the Greek word for permanent revolution or metanoia) which does not come to an end in this world, this life or this time.’ For me, ‘permanent revolution’ means not chaos or tumultuous time, but constant growth.”

[1] http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uskJWrOQ97I

"The Gospel" ~ 10/10/2010 ~ 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Proper 23.

10/10/2010 ~ 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Proper 23 ~ Jeremiah 29:1, 4-7; Psalm 66:1-12; 2 Kings 5:1-3, 7-15c; Psalm 111; 2 Timothy 2:8-15; Luke 17:11-19 ~ Columbus Day Weekend and Indigenous People’s Day Weekend on the Secular Calendar.

The Gospel

“Remember that Jesus, the Christ, a descendant of David, was raised from death. This is the Gospel I preach;....” — 2 Timothy 2:8-9a

There is a classic and challenging question sometimes, even often, posed to those of us who live in the early Twenty-first Century. (Slight pause.) Do you believe in miracles? (Slight pause.)

Miracles? How could we believe in miracles? After all, we live in an age labeled not as the Modern Age or even the Post Modern Age. The label I recently heard applied to our era is the Post-Post Modern Age. And, needless to say, we are so with it, so knowledgeable that, in this Post-Post Modern Age, miracles cannot possibly happen— right?

In fact, just a couple of months ago, someone asked me if I believed in miracles. Sure, I believe in miracles. I believe miracles happen everyday. Open heart surgery— that’s a miracle— right?

Why, you can even have a conversation with someone half way around the world over a device which has no visible connection to anything, no wires. That’s a miracle— right?

Something in my car can pinpoint me within a matter of feet at the exact location on this planet, tell me how fast I’m traveling, predict the time at which I am likely to arrive at a specific destination or even send out an emergency signal if it senses I have been in an accident. That’s a miracle— right? (Slight pause.)

Or are these things more like magic than miracles? And what is the difference between magic and a miracle? Is there a difference? (Slight pause.)

First, I want to suggest none of the things I just mentioned are miracles. We might call these things modern wonders and we might think they seem like magic.

But we need to realize everything on that list fits the first definition of magic. And the first definition of magic, however amazing it seems, is this: magic can always be explained.

Second, I want to suggest there are real miracles. But they are not what many people label as miracles. Here are a few: the birth of a child. That’s a miracle— right?

The fact that, if you pay attention, you can hear that same newborn baby, at about six week old but often younger than that, giggle. Who told that baby a joke and what was the punch line which provided laughter? And why did we not hear the punch line or get the joke. A baby who giggles early on... that’s a miracle— right?

Here’s another miracle— that we are capable of loving another person so deeply the only thing needed to convey the depth of that emotion is a look or a nod— at which point your knees get weak. Yeah, that’s a miracle.

The fact that a true friend will stand with you in a time of crisis, no questions asked. (Slight pause.) These are miracles— all of them. (Slight pause.)

The Gospel reading today contains a story many name as a miracle. (Quote:) “As Jesus was entering a village, ten people with leprosy approached. Keeping their distance, they raised their voices, called out, saying, ‘Jesus, Rabbi, have pity on us!’ Jesus saw them and said to them, ‘Go and show yourselves to the priests.’ As they were going, they were healed.”

Now, here’s an obvious question: is that encounter a miracle or is it magic? And, if it is a miracle, what makes it a miracle and, if it is a miracle, what is the difference between a miracle and magic?

Please remember, the word ‘magic’ means you can explain it. And, in fact, many in the modern era— or is it the post-post modern era?— many in the modern era do try to explain the so called miracle incidents in the Scriptures in terms of how they could have happened.

But I would suggest explaining these events by offering some scientific or rational possibility as a catalyst is a hollow project. Equally, I would suggest explaining these events by insisting the literalness of the action must be accepted on face value is also a hollow project.

Both these approaches miss the point. The classic questions ‘Did it happen?’ or ‘Did it not happen?’ and explanations of either of those stands are attempts to deny there is any meaning beyond the event.

And I want to suggest it is the meaning of miracles is which matters. Why? Unless there is meaning beyond the event, transcending the event, the event being described as a miracle is not a miracle and cannot ever be defined as a miracle. (Pause.)

And these words are from the work known as Second Timothy: “Remember that Jesus, the Christ, a descendant of David, was raised from death. This is the Gospel I preach;....” (Pause.)

Perhaps if we looked at the word ‘Gospel’ found in this passage from Second Timothy, it could help us with the word miracle. So, what does the word Gospel mean?

Clearly the writer of Second Timothy is intent on preaching whatever it is this writer is defining as Gospel. So, let’s ask the obvious question: does Gospel refer to the four documents we currently name as Gospels? Probably not.

Given when we think Second Timothy was written, not long after the death of the Apostle Paul, it seems unlikely the writer of Second Timothy had access to any of the documents we now label as Gospels. They may not have even been written yet.

Hence, there must be some other meaning associated by the early church with this word ‘Gospel.’ But it’s clear the word ‘Gospel’ in this context obviously does not mean the four works we commonly call ‘Gospels.’

So, how does the writer use the word ‘Gospel?’ (Slight pause.) This seems clear: Jesus is named as a descendant of David. So, a connection to the Hebrew tradition appears to be central to this meaning of Gospel. Then we have a proclamation that Jesus is raised from death. This also seems central. (Slight pause.)

Now, I hope this is not a shock to you, but that’s it. That’s the Gospel here. Just these two connected statements: Jesus, a descendant of David, is raised from death. (Slight pause.)

Yes, there is a lot more to say. In fact, there is much more elaboration demanded by this simple explanation. But, when it comes to what the writer of Second Timothy is addressing in this passage, that’s it. That’s the Gospel being preached— all of it— descendant of David, raised from death.

And, even though there is much more to be said, this Gospel, this proclamation that Jesus descended from David and is raised from death can be summed up by naming the meaning behind these words, the meaning behind the action, the meaning behind the incident being described. What is that meaning? God offers us the deep relationship called covenant love.

Indeed, the fact that Jesus descended from David and is raised from death says this and only this: in Christ God affirms covenant love. That is the meaning behind the words, the action, the incident— if you would— of the nativity, the life, the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus. That is the Gospel, or as some describe it: the Good News. In Christ the covenant love God offers is affirmed as real. (Slight pause.)

And so, what is the Gospel? What are miracles? (Slight pause.) When Jesus tells those who have leprosy to go see the priests, the event is not central. The fact that God offers covenant love is central.

Therefore, yes, miracles are about babies being born and giggling. And therefore, yes, miracles are about deeply loving another person. And therefore, yes, miracles are about friends who stand with us.

Why? These are about relationships. And the miracle called the Gospel is about relationship.

The miracle called the Gospel is about the affirmation in Christ of the relationship of God with humanity. The miracle called the Gospel is about the relationship we commonly label as the covenant love of God. Amen.

10/10/2010
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY

ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Benediction. This, then, is an précis of what the pastor said before the blessing: “As was mentioned earlier in the service, today is 10/10/10 and during the service we hit 10:10 a.m. also. That’s interesting but it’s foolishness. It means nothing. The covenant love God offers means everything.”

OCTOBER NEWSLETTER - LETTER TO THE CHURCH

Dear Friends in Christ,

Many of you know I qualify as a “computer geek.” The first time I operated a computer I was 19 years old and it was an old fashioned ‘main frame’ machine.

So, it should not come as a surprise that I can and do use the internet as a source of information. On the ‘net’ I recently saw a lecture by the popular non-fiction writer Stephen Johnson about his forthcoming book (to be released October 5th) Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation.

That’s where the internet came in handy. His lecture was offered in Oxford, England and I did not have to get on a plane to see it. I just sat at my desk.

In the lecture Johnson tried to explain how innovation, new ideas really develop. What did he say? First he showed a picture of The Grand Café— the oldest ‘coffee house’ in England, built in 1650.

But its advent changed people’s habits and how people interacted with one another. He says this landmark was crucial to the development and the spread of ideas in the era we now call the Enlightenment.

As to habits, up until that era, morning, noon and night people drank, primarily, alcoholic beverages. Beer was consumed with breakfast, wine with lunch, gin with dinner. Water was not really safe to drink in that era. But, despite not being sanitized by alcohol, coffee and tea slowly but surely became staples once the coffee house appeared on the scene.

As to interaction, Johnson jovially suggests that the switch from depressants to stimulants (alcohol to caffeine) meant people were encouraged to concentrated on developing ideas. But more to the point and on a more serious note, coffee houses, just by their layouts, became places where interaction among people grew. People sat and talked. There is a modern term for how coffee houses changed the face of society: ‘networking.’ Coffee houses encouraged networking.

The claim made by Johnson, indeed, his finding having studied the topic of where and how good ideas are discovered, is that good ideas— innovations— are generally not found in ‘eureka’ moments, or strokes of genius, or epiphanies. Ideas are nurtured among people, in groups, and ideas develop and are tested slowly, over time.

For our culture, a culture which tends to look for ‘silver bullet’ fixes, the ‘big idea,’ ‘the one person who will lead us into the light,’ the necessary collaboration implied by this finding is somewhat alien. We like to think the next year or the next gadget or the next election will fix our problems. It won’t. Collaboration might.

Here is another example of collaboration which works. Ten years ago Brockton High School in Massachusetts was a case study in failure. A quarter of the students passed statewide exams. One in three dropped out.

Further, it is one of the largest high schools in America with 4,100 students. In our country it has been taken as ‘wisdom’ that large schools cannot work. Only small schools can be made to work.

At Brockton the teachers and administrators refused to accept that premise. They met and started to brainstorm. They decided that reading, writing, speaking and reasoning were the most important skills to teach.

Then they set out to recruit every educator in the building— not just the humanities teachers under whose bailiwick the teaching of these skills often falls, but math, science and guidance counselors— to teach those skills to students. Even the physical education department bought in to the new program. These skills were stressed in gym classes.

And, needless to say, the turn around happened. But the bottom line as to why the turn around happened is people were willing to work with one another, to network, to identify when a teacher or a student needed help.

In the context of the church, leadership groups are not meant to merely ‘conduct the business’ of the church. Most people would find that, if not drudgery, at least boring.

Leadership groups are meant to be spiritual companionship groups too. It is in these settings that people can not only find their place among the greater whole but it is also in these places where networking is possible, that ideas and innovation can percolate (pardon the coffee house reference).

And no, innovation does not happen quickly. One idea will not be a fix-all. That was not true in the coffee houses of the 1650s, nor in Brockton High School nor in the United Church of Christ, First Congregational of Norwich.

But innovation does happen when people are willing to work together, to work with one another, and to nurture one another spiritually. And yes, some ideas will not be good. Others will.

And yes, as the coffee house example illustrated, setting— location— can be an influence, helping put people in touch with one another. And, as the example at Brockton High School teaches us, a willingness to work on making things better through mutual cooperation is a second key.

We have the location, so we don’t need to build our own coffee house. Our location is at 11 West Main Street in Norwich. And this is a place where you can find people who are willing to work, to be spiritually cooperative and supportive.

This is what I tell my confirmands: (like the Brockton High School) we will work basics. In our case, we will work on spiritual basics: ‘Who am I?’ ‘How do I fit in?’ ‘What is the church?’ How does the church fit in with society?’ How do I fit into the church?’ ‘What is Scripture, when was it written and why does or should it mean something for us today?’ These questions all address basic Christian spirituality.

So, what can I say? See you in church!


In Faith,

Joe Connolly

God and Jesus 101 ~ 10/03/2010 ~ Proper 22 ~ 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost.

10/03/2010 ~ Proper 22 ~ 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Lamentations 1:1-6; Lamentations 3:19-26 or Psalm 137; Habakkuk 1:1-4; 2:1-4; Psalm 37:1-9; 2 Timothy 1:1-14; Luke 17:5-10 ~ Communion Sunday ~ World Wide Communion Sunday ~ Neighbors in Need.

God and Jesus 101

“To Timothy, my beloved child: May grace, mercy and peace from God the Creator and Jesus, who is the Christ, and our Savior, be with you. I am grateful to God, I thank the God of my ancestors— whom I worship with a clear conscience, as my ancestors did....” — 2 Timothy 1:2-3a.


It’s likely most of you know I am a baseball fan. Occasionally, someone will ask what team I root for. My answer is: “You don’t understand. I’m a baseball fan. I’ve been known to pull over to the side of the road and stop and watch a little league game.”

Sometimes someone will press me and suggest that, since I grew up in New York City, I must root for the Yankees or the Mets or, since I spent so much time in Maine, the Red Sox must be the team for which I root. At that point I answer, “You don’t understand. My team, the team I rooted for, no longer exists. My team was the Brooklyn Dodgers. They left Brooklyn when I was nine. It broke my heart.” (Slight pause.)

My childhood devotion to the Brooklyn Dodgers, that particular fandom, comes through inheritance. Yes, my Dad was a Dodgers fan. And yes, he took me to see games in Ebbets Field, the home of ‘dem bums.’

But my Grandmother was the real fan. How big a fan was she? She would sit in front of the television rooting for the Dodgers and, good Catholic woman that she was, say the rosary praying for the team to win.

For her, the Yankees were scum. The New York Baseball Giants, the National League rivals of the Dodgers who played in the Bronx at the Polo Grounds— they were not scum. They were merely unworthy. (Slight pause.)

This much is certain: our lineage and early childhood forms us in many ways. Hence, our likes, our dislikes the things we root for or against, are often just inherited. And those inherited likes and dislikes can be appropriate but they can be inappropriate.

One thing that can make inherited likes and dislikes appropriate is when we own those likes and dislikes for ourselves, when we work on them, when we think about them, when we think them through. I became a baseball fan, as opposed to a team fan. But I lost my team. As a consequence, I stopped simply rooting for a team and started to think about and study the game.

You see, people readily become fans. It’s easy. Being a fan does not demand much of anything except rooting— my team good, other team not good. A person doesn’t really have to know much to be a fan.

Being a fan of a game, as opposed to being a fan of a team, is a more demanding discipline. It insists a person not simply roots but really studies, thinks about and knows a game. (Slight pause.)

And these words are found in Second Timothy: “To Timothy, my beloved child: May grace, mercy and peace from God the Creator and Jesus, who is the Christ, and our Savior, be with you. I am grateful to God, I thank the God of my ancestors— whom I worship with a clear conscience, as my ancestors did....” (Slight pause.)

As was mentioned earlier, while we are fairly sure Paul did not write these words, the theology we find here is rock solid. Why is that?

Well, perhaps it has to do with both what is inherited and what is owned. The writer indicates Timothy inherited the faith. But Timothy has clearly done things to own it. How so?

We have, in these words, an appeal to the God of the ancestors, the God of Israel. This is the God worshiped by Lois and Eunice, mother and grandmother of Timothy. Certainly this is an indication of both a longer lineage and an immediate heritage for Timothy, a history that goes back not just those several generations but back to the God of Abraham and Sarah— Yahweh, God— God who is One.

But then we get the reference to Jesus, who is the Christ. Hence, the classic question of the New Testament era is posed: ‘who is this One called Jesus?’

The answer is actually in the text waiting for us and comes with good news and bad news. The good news is that the answer is, in fact, right there, in the text, sticking out like a sore thumb. The bad news is, unless we make the answer our own, as did Timothy, we have no chance of understanding what is being said— no chance.

You see, if we simply root for Jesus, we do not really know who Jesus is and it’s unlikely we will ever know what is being said. That’s because simply rooting for Jesus requires minimal involvement.

We need to go beyond rooting, beyond merely saying “Yeah, Jesus!” And that is what Timothy has done— gone beyond rooting. And the writer illustrates this.

Later in the passage we hear (quote): “This grace was given to us in Christ, Jesus, before the ages began, before the beginning of time. It has now been revealed through the appearance of our Savior, Christ, Jesus, who has abolished, destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel.”

Here, we not only get two of the three persons of the Trinity, God and Jesus, named, we get them named as co-existing from the beginning and as fulfilling the promise God makes to humanity about life everlasting. Hence, what we have in this passage is not merely a matter of rooting for Jesus, as if Jesus popped up yesterday.

And the passage does not leave us with the impression that Yahweh, God, no longer matters because Jesus is now on the scene. This is a basic explanation and a basic understanding of who Jesus is and who God is and how the writer, and by extension Timothy, has answered any questions about who Jesus is and who God is.

In many ways, the question being answered is not the classic ‘who is Jesus?’ question. The question being answered is a little different and is this: ‘if the God of the ancestors, Yahweh, is One God, how does Jesus fit in— if Yahweh, God, is One?’

Both the question and the answer are much more textured and subtle than simply rooting for Jesus. Further, coming to an understanding of this requires that we make what is being said our own. Now, making it our own, grappling with this, is really very basic stuff. But it does go beyond simply rooting.

These basics are what I call God and Jesus 101. And I want to suggest we cannot get to a place where we understanding the meanings of and in the New Testament unless we study and think about and grapple with who God is and who Jesus is and, thereby, understand it for ourselves, make it our own. (Slight pause.)

Dan Smith, author of Pathway to Renewal says this about how a church can renew itself: “The church seeking renewal must look beyond simply improving its programs and its building.… What’s renewed in a congregation... what’s renewed in congregational renewal... is the people’s understanding of their relationship with God, their community and their sense of calling.” (Slight pause.)

I am grateful for the legacy of my Father and my Grandmother. I am grateful for the legacy of those who wrote the Hebrew Scriptures. I am grateful for the legacy of those who wrote the Christian Scriptures.

I am grateful for the legacy of those who founded and built this church, here in Norwich. I am grateful for the legacy of the cloud of witnesses who, over the centuries, have left a legacy of study, work and devotion which can be found in Christian history.

But unless I, personally, grapple with that legacy and make it my own, I am simply rooting. “Yeah, Jesus.” “Yeah, ancestors.” “Yeah, Norwich.” (Slight pause.) It does not work for the long run.

So, the challenge for us is obvious: are we willing to do the work to make the legacy which we have been left a true inheritance by making it our own? Are we willing to make that legacy our own legacy and, thereby, ourselves, leave an inheritance, leave a legacy, leave a richness of faith, to another generation? Amen.



10/03/2010
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York

ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Benediction. This, then, is an précis of what the pastor said before the blessing: “When I was in the Army, I learned a useful word: ‘nomenclature.’ It means description. Every piece of Army equipment has a description label, a nomenclature label— it actually uses the word: nomenclature— Army talk. I think a helpful question is this: ‘What is the Christian nomenclature of God?’ ‘How do we describe God?’ Islam, Judaism and Christianity are Monotheistic religions. But Christianity makes a subtle, texture claim for God. We claim there is one God, Three persons— Trinitarian Monotheism— or Monotheistic Trinitarianism. But that is the nomenclature, the description we Christians claim. For each of us to own, for ourselves, such a textured, subtle description of God requires study, reflection, work.”