09/25/2011 ~ SERMON ~ Teachings

09/25/2011 ~ Proper 21 ~ Twenty-sixth Sunday in Ordinary time ~ Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Exodus 17:1-7; Psalm 78:1-4, 12-16; Ezekiel 18:1-4, 25-32; Psalm 25:1-9; Philippians 2:1-13; Matthew 21:23-32.

Teachings

“Give ear, O my people, to my teaching; / incline your ears, listen to the words of my mouth.” — Psalm 78:1

I know there are some who would accuse me of being a voracious reader. Yes, guilty— I admit it. And I read mostly non-fiction. But, rumor to the contrary, I do read some fiction (especially science fiction— that’s my thing, I’m sorry).

Now, as to that non-fiction end of the spectrum, what I read is quite eclectic. I read everything from real science (as opposed to its fictional counterpart) to biography to history to mathematics to sociology and, of course, theology.

On the other hand, there are some books I’ve avoided and that includes ones on theology. Once, way before I entered seminary, the well known German theologian Hans Küng published the work Does God Exist? Surprisingly, that work reached the New York Times bestseller list, so I sought it out.

I distinctly remember going to a bookstore, taking it from a shelf and hefting the book. It was heavy. I turned to the last page, just to see exactly how long it was— 839 pages.

As I held the book in my hand, the only thought running through my head was: “Hans! You blew it! You wrote 839 pages when a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to answer the question ‘Does God Exist?’ would have saved a whole lot of trees. I placed the tome back on the bookshelf and I walked out of the store.

I never have read that book. And, yes, I have read some of Küng’s work— like it or not, you get to read some of what famous theologians say while you are in seminary— but I have not that one.

Despite the fact that I have not read this work, I do know some things the book has to say because of my seminary experience. So I need to offer some of that information in defense of Hans.

In this work— Does God Exist?— he tries to explore the difference between intellect and the will, between emotion and reason, between heart and mind. After all, most people think faith takes up where intellect can go no further. Most people think faith has nothing to do with fact. But is that true? (Slight pause.)

When I was a kid on the mean streets of Brooklyn a common thing to say, a common taunt was: “I don’t know and I don’t care.” Even back then, as a child, I realized the truth of that. I realized if one does not know, it is nearly impossible to care. And that sentiment especially applies to relationships. So, I take this to be a given: the better you know a person, the more you care.

Indeed, I believe not only are knowing and caring intertwined, I am firmly convinced knowing and caring winds back to faith and facts, which are also intertwined. To explore that idea, that facts and faith are and need to be interconnected, let me run some statistics by you.

Before I do so I want to offer the caution that surveys can be poor measures at best, but these number are from one survey. Did you know that about 34% of Americans believe in UFOs? To go along with that, about 30% take the Bible literally. 33% believe in ghosts. 25% accept astrology as fact based. [1] (Slight pause.) My bet is you’re seeing a pattern here. It’s a fairly close matrix, isn’t it.

The famous astronomer and cosmologist Carl Sagan said that of all the possible reasons people give for UFO sightings, ‘beings’ visiting from another planet or another galaxy is the least likely— the least likely— explanation for UFOs. I think the same is true of all those numbers. The explanation being insisted on for the phenomena being referenced is the least likely choice. (Slight pause.)

So, listen again to these words from the work known as Psalm 78: “Give ear, O my people, to my teaching; / incline your ears, listen to the words of my mouth.” (Slight pause.)

What is the teaching in this Psalm, the teaching to which we are instructed to incline our ears? What are the facts of faith— facts of faith— presented? (Slight pause.)

(Quote:) “In the sight of the ancestors / You performed marvels / in the land of Egypt,... You split the sea and led them through it, / You made the waters stand like a wall. / You guided them with a cloud by day, / and all night long with the light of a fire.”

This is the teaching to which the Hebrew Scriptures always return. God rescues the people of Israel from Egypt— not how God rescues but that God does rescue the people of Israel from Egypt. In referencing the Exodus event, the intent of the message here is to be clear that God is the one who offers salvation.

Indeed, please note that our culture seems to think the important part of the Exodus event is the giving of the Commandments. No. The important part of the Exodus event is the relationship God establishes with the people of Israel in bringing them out of Egypt.

The important part of Exodus is not Sinai. The important part of Exodus is Suez: the crossing of the sea. Hence, to coin a phrase, and say it briefly, the important message of Exodus is Suez not Sinai— Suez not Sinai.

You see, the giving of the Commandments, the Sinai event, does not do much to establish a relationship or to forward a relationship. These are rules. These are limitations. The action of the escape from Egypt both establishes and forwards a relationship.

I need to note that when a Jewish family sits to celebrate the Passover Seder together, they remember the escape from Egypt. The giving of the Commandments on Mount Horeb is not mentioned once— the Passover event is central. (Slight pause.)

I want to come back to the simple question Hans Küng broached: “Does God Exist?” Surely, the answer ‘yes’ requires faith. But is faith sightless? Is faith based in ignorance? Or does faith require us to be educated?

The short answer is ‘yes’— faith does require us to be educated. The longer answer has to do with that 34% who believe in UFOs, the 30% who take the Bible literally, the 33% who believe in ghosts and the 25% who accept astrology as fact based.

Frankly, it would be a cheap shot to say these people who believe these things are ignorant. They are not. It would be an even cheaper shot to say they are stupid. They are not. It would be the cheapest shot of all to say they are gullible. They are not.

The most likely explanation for what, on the surface, seems like a good portion of the population failing to base their judgments on fact is that they are not culturally attuned to basing those judgments on fact. And this is especially true when it comes to Scripture.

And what are the facts found in Scripture? The claim made by Scripture is that God seeks to be in a relationship of covenant with humanity. The claim made by Scripture is that God loves us. However, the claim made by not just our culture but by many cultures is that rules matter more than relationships— a cultural claim— rules matter more than relationships— not the claim of Scripture.

So, since the facts presented to us in Scripture are these: God loves us and wants to covenant with us, what is it we need to learn? (Slight pause.) I could be wrong, but I think the piece that we need to pay attention to is to ask: ‘what the stories found in Scripture mean.’ Meaning trumps everything.

People too often ask ‘what do the stories say?’ because that response is culturally ingrained. But, if we ask ‘what do the stories mean’ then we have come to a place where true learning about what Scripture tells us can start. (Slight pause.)

That saying I leaned on streets of Brooklyn: “I don’t know and I don’t care” is true. If you don’t know, you will not care. That sentiment, to reiterate, especially applies to relationships.

So, I take this to be a given: the more deeply you know God, the more you will care about God, the more the covenant God has made with humanity, this covenant which says ‘God loves all people’ will matter. And because of that, the more you know about God the more you will know something about loving neighbor. (Slight pause.)

Who is watching carefully now? Did you notice something different about the bulletin today? The opening hymn was labeled a “hymn of love.” The middle hymn was labeled a “hymn of covenant.” The closing hymn was labeled a “hymn of trust.”

Love— God loves us; covenant— because of love, God covenants with us; trust— we often think in terms of humans trusting God. But we need to think of that the other way around. Yes, we should trust God but God trusts us to love others. Now, that is really amazing. And that is a learning. Amen.

09/25/2011
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 Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I can sum up the Bible in one word: ‘love.’ But, to be more expansive than that, let’s use those three mentioned earlier: ‘love, covenant, trust.’ If we don’t understand the meaning of Scripture with those words, if we insist there is more to it, we don’t understand Scripture.”

BENEDICTION: The grace of God is deeper than our imagination. The strength of Christ is stronger than our need. The communion of the Holy Spirit is richer than our togetherness. O Holy Triune God, guide and sustain us today and in all our tomorrows. Amen.

[1] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html

09/18/2011 ~ Proper 20 ~ Twenty-fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Exodus 16:2-15; Psalm 105:1-6, 37-45; Jonah 3:10-4:11; Psalm 145:1-8; Philippians 1:21-30; Matthew 20:1-16.

Acts of Love, Moments of Love

“‘Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?’” — Matthew 20:15a.

I have often mentioned here that I have some background as a writer in theater. Also, as many of you know, I am a fan of the composer Stephen Sondheim.

And so, perhaps simply because of nostalgia, wanting to be in touch with my past, I keep tabs on the doings in professional theater. Hence and therefore, I am aware a revival of my favorite Sondheim show, Follies, a production which features the Broadway diva Bernadette Peters, opened this week.

It is a show considered by many to be Sondheim’s seminal work, but one not widely known outside of theater circles. Well known or not, the reviews for this production were glowing.

If one only considers the setting for Follies, it is an intriguing premise. The action takes place in a theater about to be torn down and replaced by a parking lot.

The stage of the old theater is where a review known as The Follies played year after year after year. The story depicts a reunion of Follies girls, chorus girls who have come there to trade reminiscences, have a drink and tell a lie or two about themselves as they enjoy each other’s company, perhaps for the last time.

The action concentrates on two of these former show girls and the men, the stage door Johnnies, they married. As the tale unfolds, you find out the men these chorines married were not the men they were dating when they were young. They each wound up marrying the man the other woman was dating.

One married a sophisticated chap, now a diplomat, and lives on Park Avenue. On the surface that marriage seems cold, bitter. The other lives in the mid-west. She married a regular guy, a traveling salesman, but longs for the excitement she thinks she might have missed out on, living the high life in the big city.

Hence, questions hang over the interactions of these four people as the evening evolves. Did each girl marry the right guy? Or should they have stayed with their first love? How do they feel about where they wound up? Each gave up something in the transaction. What were the trade offs? Were the trades worth the cost? And is love simply a trade off, a transaction, and that’s all?

One character reflectively sings these words: “The road you didn’t take / Hardly comes to mind, / Does it? / The door you didn’t try, / Where could it have led? / The choice you didn’t make / Never was defined. / Was it? / Dreams you didn’t dare / Are dead. / Were they ever there? / Who said! / I don’t remember, / I don’t remember / At all.” [1] (Slight pause.)

Throughout the unfolding reunion party, the audience watching today can see ghost like figures, unseen by these two couples. The ghosts are the younger versions of the older characters. They never speak to their older selves but stand near their counterparts, observing. This allows the audience to see these relationships as trapped in time— trapped in and by the past, trapped in and by the present.

Follies, you see, is a musical not just about a reunion and a theater being torn down. The irony found in the title is that the show addresses human follies, human limitations. And the show addresses life and love and the passage of time and the importance of art and choices and the possibilities of success and failure.

Now, I attended the opening night of the first production of Follies. And just two days later I was sitting in a classroom at New York University where Stephen Sondheim was, personally, offering some thoughts about human follies— thoughts about life and love and the passage of time and the importance of art and choices and the possibilities of success and failure.

By this time Sondheim had written four hit shows— the lyrics for West Side Story and Gypsy and both music and lyrics for A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum and Company. It was fascinating to hear him address how commercial theater operates. He was blunt.

“You are only as good as your last show,” Sondheim said. “If your last show was a success, then it becomes that much easier to raise money for the next one. A flop doesn’t mean your finished. It does mean everything is harder the next time out.”

He went on to be clear that the intrinsic value of a work of art was not the same thing as commercial success. Sondheim knows what he wants to see in his work. He gave and gives great importance to real value. But in our society, commercial success means works of little intrinsic value and works of great intrinsic value are equal, if they are equally successful.

Decisions are based on return. Hence, there is only one basic question we ask. What is the return for cost? What is the return for cost? (Slight pause.)

And these words are from the work known as Matthew: “‘Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?’” (Slight pause.)

A classic question for our age, world wide, is not ‘what is something worth?’ We do not ask ‘what is the depth and dimension of something?’ We do not ask, ‘what is the value?’ We ask: ‘what does it cost?’ We justify everything by cost, not by value, not by meaning.

We seem to look only at math, only at numbers, when the depth, dimension and the spirit of life entails so much more than that. Asking what something costs while not asking about value may seem like a modern malady. It is not.

This is, in many ways, the problem of the laborers who went into the vineyard early. They concentrate on cost. So they expect to be reimbursed. They expect a return.

But is asking what something cost, is asking what return you get, something we should ask about relationships? How often have you heard the phrase, “How much do you love me?”

I want to suggest that if there is something you’re feeling that you are labeling as love and you can quantify it— as in “how much?”— it is not love. Love cannot be measured. (Slight pause.)

These words from the work known as Jonah have a message for us too (quote): “Is this not exactly what I said would happen, when I was still in my own country? That is why I left and fled to Tarshish; I knew that you are a God who is gracious and merciful, tender and compassionate, slow to anger, rich in kindness, and abounding in steadfast love,...”

Put another way, Jonah knew God loves. And Jonah knew that love cannot be quantified, love cannot be measured. Love cannot even be confined to time. So, Jonah did not want to go to Nineveh. Why?

Deep love, true love is not transactional. Jonah was demanding a transaction. Jonah wanted to see the Ninevehites punished, but knew God is (quote): “...ready to relent from punishing or violence.” (Slight pause.)

And so it is in the vineyard. At the end of the day, the workers line up for their pay. And what is their complaint? Their real complaint is that they are not paid in coin. Their real complaint is with what the landowner chooses to give.

The landowner chooses to give of self. Hence, what the landowner really chooses to give is not a wage. What the landowner chooses to give is love. Love, you see, cannot be quantified. Love is just there. Love is giving of one’s self. (Slight pause.)

As I indicated, we live in a world where we quantify everything, including love. And perhaps that’s Jonah’s complaint and the complaint of the vineyard workers: we do not know what to do with unconditional love, eternal love. But, of course, we think of human love as trapped in time. Is it?

The love God offers is eternal love. It is not trapped in time. The love God offers is unconditional love, love that cannot be broken into transactions. But, if the love God offers is a part of love, even human love, then human love is not trapped in or by time, either.

Indeed, the love God offers transcends human love but offers us a way to see love which is beyond our imagining. And, indeed, the love God offers is, in the words of Paul, love which surpasses our understanding. Still, it is real love. And it is eternal. Amen.

09/18/2011
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 Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “We experience love in specific acts, in specific moments. God, on the other hand, is always loving, and loves all people. I want to suggest that, while we cannot really understand that, this is the theological truth: God loves not just in acts and in moments, but for all time and in all ways.”

BENEDICTION: God surprises us and provides for us. Let us trust God and give thanks. Let us seek God’s will. And may the blessing of the God of Abraham and Sarah, the God of Jesus born of our sister Mary, the one who is the Christ, and the Holy Spirit who broods over the world as a mother hen over chicks, be upon us and remain with us always.

[1] The Road You Didn’t Take from Follies by Sondheim.

THE SERMON FROM THE SUNDAY AFTER 09/11/2001

This is the sermon from 09/16/2001, the Sunday after 9/11/2001. Not a word has been changed.

*********************************************

09/16/2001 - Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost - Jeremiah 4:11-12, 22-28; Psalm 14 or Exodus 32:7-14; Psalm 51:1-10; 1 Timothy 1:12-17; Luke 15:1-10; Sunday Bulletin Service Theme: God is their refuge; Used Romans 8:18-23 and Luke 15:1-32; note: since the 15th chapter of Luke is a single literary unit, the whole chapter was read. The Sunday after the terrorist attack on Washington and New York.

The Ultimate Concern

In Luke’s Gospel the son who has stayed at home says to his father, “...‘Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends.’” — Luke 15:29.


Where were you when it happened? Were you at work? At home? On the road? Were you alone? With someone? Did someone call and tell you to turn on the television or radio?

Or were you out of touch, fishing or hiking and not find out about the terrorism until many hours after it happened? Just like Pearl Harbor or the Challenger disaster, we all will long remember where we were or in whose company we found ourselves.

I’m sure you’ve heard this said by others, but it seems to have credence. At 8:48 on Tuesday morning, life, as we know it, changed forever. The way we live our lives will never be the same for our country or the world. This is because, as Secretary of State Powell eloquently stated, the actions Tuesday were not merely or only an attack on this country. They were an attack on civilization... all civilization.

And, as Shimon Peres noted, this is not a clash between civilizations— for instance: the Muslim world versus the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish worlds. The is a clash within each of these structures among those who condone unacceptable behavior toward other people and those who don’t condone it.

We all know there are Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews who believe, as Christians do, that we are accountable, in God’s dominion, for responsible behavior toward all people, so to label any group as liable would be emotionally immature. Therefore, let us act in an emotionally mature fashion about this, abandoning inappropriate anger.

It would also be wise for us to remember what President Lincoln said of the South during the Civil War: “They pray to the same God.” No one needs to go to war with the millions of Muslims who pray to the same God we do. [1] To be theologically clear: we may have different means of expression and even different understandings, but God is God.

There are, of course, some individuals in each of these groups, Christians included, Americans included, who are nihilists. A dictionary definition says nihilists are people who deny there is any sound basis for knowledge or truth as perceived by most of humanity. Hence, nihilists are individuals who see only their own, personal truth, nothing else. Because any individualistic truth eventually turns virulent since it is inbred, these people believe only self-proclaimed insight matters.

There’s an eventual latent consequence to inbred truth: it leads to a self-centered belief that one is not to be held responsible for behavior towards others, therefore anything goes. It’s little wonder this kind of position culminates in believing one’s own law and insisting that one’s own understanding of the law must reign supreme. This kind of thinking only results in a conclusion which insists the ends justify the means.

Christianity and all the great world religions, when well understood, have, at their core, a history which rejects nihilism, rejects ignorance, rejects insular judgments, rejects legalism, rejects the darkness found when one surrenders to an impulse which says cruelty to others is acceptable behavior. Indeed, the great world religions often use metaphors, verbal equations which state that God is light or knowledge or truth.

None of these metaphors can be construed to suggest God somehow condones harboring hate. None of the metaphors even suggest that God is law. The most common metaphor used says God is love. (Pause.)

Now, I’ll bet a few of you are sitting there saying, well Joe, you’ve presented a fine intellectual analysis of what’s gone on here, but I need an emotional place on which to hang my hat. I need to emotionally grapple with what’s happened. (Pause.) Yes, I agree. And so do I. And so do millions and millions of other people.

But grappling with this situation emotionally is not going to happen just yet. It’s too soon. That’s going to take months, perhaps even years. There will be a long process in just identifying our own emotions, a long process grieving for ourselves and for others.

And I can even tell you what it will be like when we’ve come to the point where we have all actually succeeded in emotionally grappling with the terror of last Tuesday. (Pause.) We will have succeeded in emotionally grappling with the terror of last Tuesday, when we’ve finally managed to forgive those who perpetrated this horror.

In the meantime, the thing about which we must be careful is we might presume that, in our response, we are not and should not be held responsible for our behavior towards others, or that we might think cruelty is acceptable behavior, or that we might believe anything goes, or perhaps even believe that our own law and our own understanding of the law reigns supreme. If we start down that road we might end up claiming the ends justifies the means. (Pause.) Let us not, ourselves, turn toward a vision of darkness which leads to such sure destructiveness. (Pause.)

And in Luke’s Gospel the son who has stayed at home says to his father, “...‘Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends.’” (Pause.)

In the modern era we seem to have forgotten something. Religion does not offer information about facts. Religion speaks about meaning. Hence, if we are religious, attempting to explore how many days it took God to create the world is not a valid position. Delving into ‘why’ God created the world is.

When those who practice religion defend the great symbols of religion, symbols such as creation, as fact and not symbol, they merely surrender any power such symbols might have to move us emotionally. Symbols offer dimension, depth, meaning and address our emotional lives. Facts are strangely one dimensional.

Indeed, in a classic definition of religion the question is asked “What is our ultimate concern?” If truth be told, before Tuesday in the late 20th and early 21st century we, meaning humanity, not only Americans, had all kinds of ultimate concerns which mostly ignored meaning, dimension and depth.

After all, the classic question of our age, world wide, is not ‘what is something worth, what is the depth and dimension of its value,’ but ‘what does it cost?’ We justify everything by what it cost, not by what it is worth, not by its value, not by its meaning.

Indeed, that may have been a mistake made by the perpetrators of Tuesday’s attack. They seem to have thought, because they saw us asking about cost rather than value, we would ask what was the loss in terms of cost, when our response has been to concentrate on asking what this meant in human terms, in terms of value, in terms of dimension and depth of the loss. We realized it was our spirit which was assaulted.

Asking what something cost and not asking what is something worth, asking about its value may seem like a modern malady at first. But over the history of humanity one of our problems seems to be that we are constantly sidetracked into looking only at cost, only at facts, when the depth, dimension and spirit of life entail so much more than that.

This is, in many ways, the problem of the son who stayed at home. He is just as lost, if not even more lost, than his prodigal brother. His brother, in the end, understood something about what life is worth, the value of life, as opposed to what life cost.

Despite being what many might deem the ‘faithful son,’ the one who stayed and worked asks why he has never been given ‘even a young goat?’ He is asking ‘what’s the cost?’ (Pause.)

It seems to me that last Tuesday has the potential, if we allow it, to move us to asking questions about depth, dimension and spirit, questions about what our ultimate concern might really be. Is our ultimate concern cost or is our ultimate concern value?

Is our ultimate concern the God of light and hope and justice and peace and knowledge and freedom and truth? Or is our ultimate concern wrapped up in a nihilism of asking what things cost? Is our ultimate concern wrapped up in seeking our own, individual, inbred, virulent truth in which the ends justify the means? Or does the thought that the Creator of the universe loves us deeply, despite our flaws, have value? (Pause.)

Who were you with last Tuesday? (Pause.) Were you with someone who you did not care for but someone who God called you to love deeply? Or were you with someone you loved, but even so, you still could not begin to process the unfolding events?

Did you find yourself helping someone else as you watched in horror together? Indeed, was that person you were with someone you did not like or was it someone you loved? Or did that even matter, as you recognized your common humanity? And how did you emotionally grapple with recognizing your common humanity? (Pause.)

Where were you last Tuesday? At what place did your spirit find itself? What was your ultimate concern? (Pause.) Were you seeking depth, dimension? Were you concerned with the Spirit of God? Was your life centered on the God of hope, justice, peace, freedom, truth and knowledge, the God of love who constantly invites us out of darkness and into the light? Amen.

09/16/2001
United Church of Christ, Norwich, NY

END PIECE - It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Many of you have heard these words. They are from the memorial service of the United Church of Christ. ‘Friends, we gather here in the protective shelter of God’s healing love. We are free to pour out our grief, release our anger, face our emptiness, and know that God cares. We gather here as God’s people, conscious of others who have died and of the frailty of our own existence on earth. We come to comfort and to support one another in our common loss. We gather to hear God’s word of hope that can drive away our despair and move us to offer God our praise.’ As we gather here each Sunday it is well to remember that, as Christians, we believe the protective shelter of God’s care, God’s healing love is available to all people.”

[1] The two previous paragraphs are adapted from an article by Thomas L. Friedman in the NY Times, Smoking or Non-smoking? - 09/14/2001.

SERMON ~ 09/04/2011 ~ Love One Another

09/04/2011 ~ Proper 18 ~ 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Exodus 12:1-14; Psalm 149; Ezekiel 33:7-11; Psalm 119:33-40; Romans 13:8-14 ; Matthew 18:15-20 — Note: Communion Will Be on 9/11/2011 ~ Labor day Weekend ~ Note: John Kolb and Lilit Danielyan Join the Church.

Love One Another

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.” — Romans 13:8.


I am sure I have told this story here once before. I want to repeat it in the hope that it illustrates a larger point.

As many of you probably know, I worked behind the scenes in professional theater and as all of you probably do know, work of any kind in theater is sporadic at best. Hence, more years ago than I care to name I did a temporary stint with The Harris Poll in a year they were doing surveys for a presidential election.

One call I made was to Alabama. When I got to the demographic questions: age range, income range, etc., etc., the question for religious affiliation read this way: “Are you Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or other?” The person responded: “I’m a Baptist.”

Now, in order for an individual’s response to be counted, the person needs to answer all the questions with their words but they did need to respond only in the categories with which they were presented. Having not heard one of the aforementioned categories, I asked the question in a different way.

“Now,” I said earnestly, “historically many people would say Baptists fall under the category of Protestant. ‘Are you Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or other?’”

“I am a Baptist.” Try as I might, I could not get this person to chose the Protestant category.

I was reminded of that story because of a small brouhaha, a kerfuffle— whatever this thing is— which developed this week when Lillian Daniel, a United Church of Christ pastor at a large church in a suburb of Chicago, well known as a writer with a couple of books under her belt, wrote something which was widely circulated— at least among pastors it was widely circulated— online. In this brief piece she addressed how people call themselves “spiritual” but not “religious.”

She told a story about someone who sat next to her on an airplane. The person discovered she was a pastor and spent the entire flight telling Lillian about how he was “spiritual” but not “religious,” in part because of all the churches to which he had belonged and which had damaged him in some way.

Reverend Daniel writes (quote): “...when I meet a math teacher, I don’t feel the need to say I hated math.... when I meet a chef, I don’t need to let it be known that I can’t cook.... I keep that stuff to myself. But everybody loves to tell a minister what’s wrong with the church— and it’s usually a church that bears no relation to the one I serve.” [1]

While I hesitate to reduce Lillian’s writing to a couple of words, I think the essence of what she then said is this: to be “spiritual” rather than “religious” is a common claim these days. This approach insists if one can see God in a sunset one can, therefore, eliminate the need for church.

That line of thinking, however, does nothing but place a person as comfortably normal within the self-centered American culture. And indeed, it is within the self-centeredness of American culture where people often find religion dull but, on the other hand, often experience themselves uniquely fascinating.

Lillian insisted the place where real spirituality is found is within a religious community. She said those who join a community are brave enough to encounter God with and among other real human beings in that community.

Now, I’d be the first to say that Lillian’s approach was a little snarky, sarcastic and impertinent. It was irreverent in tone. And, yes, she had used a sharp knife.

Of course, therefore, she offended some people. And some of them, probably most of them, were pastors. They responded, as you can these days— online. They took umbrage to both her sharp knife and to her calling them out.

You see, many pastors claim that ‘spiritual’ label as their own. Indeed, some of pastors, despite the fact that they serve the institutions of religion— churches— themselves question a need to be ‘religious.’

Clearly, what Lillian was trying to do was to make the case that if one is outside of a community of faith being ‘spiritual’ is not an easy claim to make. You see, historically, a claim about being aware of the presence of God insists that those same people who are aware of the presence of God are called by God to live in community.

Indeed, even those who live in cloisters and hermitages rely on the greater community for survival. Those who live in solitude do not hate society. They are the first to acknowledge, if it was not for the support of the greater community, they could not do what they do. (Slight pause.)

And these words are from the work known as Romans: “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.” (Slight pause.)

So, this argument about ‘religious’ or ‘spiritual’ was the hot topic which bounced around the Internet among pastors this week. What crossed my mind as I watched that discussion develop is that among most Americans this was not a hot topic.

I am quite sure the hot topic around the water cooler was not what it means to be ‘spiritual’ or what it means to be ‘religious.’ The hot topic was more likely to be ‘who are the new contestants for that popular television program Dancing with the Stars?’

Now, this may surprise you, but to my mind the interesting discussion was not the discussion about ‘spiritual’ or ‘religious.’ The interesting discussion this week was about Dancing with the Stars. (I see a couple of faces going ‘What?’)

Why? Why would I think that? I think this heated argument among pastors was a little like the person from Alabama who would not place Baptists among Protestants. The real issue is one of categories.

To my mind ‘spiritual’ and ‘religious’ are both very, very, very secular categories. For me they are, therefore, not particularly pertinent, not particularly interesting. Indeed, they are not categories with which I am comfortable and, unless I was using some kind of shorthand— maybe that’s what Lillian was doing— these are not categories I would normally use.

So, why do I think these categories are inadequate? They are self referential. This is how these categories are most often spoken about [the pastor speaks in a haughty tone:] “I am spiritual, you know.” Or [the pastor speaks in a gruff tone:] “I am religious— go to church— you know what I mean?” These categories, hence, address self— what you do. They do not address the reality and the presence of God.

If God is brought directly into the mix of the discussion you get a very different approach. Here are a couple of questions about God which I think should be in the mix and which I think, therefore, pushes out those two categories: ‘Is God one?’ ‘Are there many gods?’ ‘Is God— as we Christians claim— three “persons” in One God?’

Then there are the slightly more personal and more self referential questions which arise from that but God is still at the center. ‘Did God create us?’ ‘Did we create God?’ ‘Did the gods create us or did we create the gods?’ ‘Are we in God?’ ‘Is God within us?’

And then there are the most self-referential questions in this group, ‘What is your experience of God?’ and ‘How can you share that experience with one another without being self-referential. A final question presents itself and this is: ‘how do you acknowledge the reality and the presence of God not just for yourself, but for others— not just for yourself, but for others?’

I think Paul addresses all of these God questions in this passage. Paul, you see, understands God calls us to a community of love. Paul understands loving one another produces true faithfulness. Love— love of both God and neighbor— is what produces community.

Last, I suppose what all this says is categories are both created by us and those categories can be dangerous. They simply break people into tribes. Creating categories does nothing but create tribalism.

I, for instance, am always wary of that commonly used category: ‘churched’ and ‘unchurched.’ ‘Churched’ or ‘unchurched’ by whose standard, by what church?
So, I agree with Paul where this is recorded in Romans (quote): “...the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.” Paul, you see, here merges categories: love... law. And, as far as I can tell any category we create is probably too small for God, except one. And that is the category called love. Amen.

09/04/2011
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 Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “We live in an era, in a world where we sometimes struggle for struggle for self-identity. Perhaps people seek to break things into categories such as ‘spiritual’ or ‘religious’ because they are seeking some kind of identity which sets them apart, individualizes them. But that is the interesting and wonderful thing about love. It both joins us together as one and sets us apart as individuals. Indeed that is the interesting and wonderful thing about God. The Christian claim has always been that God sees us as individuals and sees us in community.”

BENEDICTION
Let us go forth in the Spirit of Christ. Let us seek the will of God. Let us put aside ambition and conceit for the greater good. Let us serve in joyfully. And now hear this is prayer of Melanesian Islanders: May Jesus be the canoe that holds us up in the sea of life. May Jesus be the rudder that keeps us in the straight road. May Jesus be the outrigger that supports us in times of trial. May the Spirit of Jesus be our sail that carries us through each day. Amen.

[1] http://christiancentury.org/article/2011-08/you-can-t-make

Note: this is the full writing. The piece which got the most response was a cut-down version of this. This is the cut down version:

http://www.ucc.org/feed-your-spirit/daily-devotional/spiritual-but-not-religious.html