SERMON ~ 09/29/2013 ~ “Frightened”

09/29/2013 ~ Proper 21 ~ Twenty-sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Jeremiah 32:1-3a, 6-15; Psalm 91:1-6, 14-16; Amos 6:1a, 4-7; Psalm 146; 1 Timothy 6:6-19; Luke 16:19-31 ~ At around 4:00 p.m. There Will Be a Concert in the Nave Sponsored by the Chenango County Council of the Arts Featuring the Don Byron ~ 5th Sunday Hymn Sing Prelude.

Frightened

“‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets,’ Abraham and Sarah replied, ‘neither will they be convinced even if someone should rise from the dead.’” — Luke 16:31.

I am sure most of you know, when someone says the words “New York” many people think “New York City.”  Norwich, of course, is in New York State but nowhere near New York City.  Norwich is in a rural area of New York State.

Now as many of you also know, I grew up in New York City.  And yes, New York City is a really, really big city and life can be very different in a big city than it is in a rural area.  But, having been a native of New York City, I then moved to Maine.

Maine is a rural state, a state that does not even have a big city anywhere in it.  So, having moved to a rural state, I then moved to Norwich, in a state with a couple of big cities but a whole lot of rural areas.

Now, one might fairly argue that when I moved to Maine and then continued on to Norwich those moves meant I experienced a very large shift in cultural surroundings.  Why, yes, I did.  My motto had always been ‘If the Subway doesn’t go there it’s too far.’

But what was it that did not change for me?  What remained the same for me?  People— people are people are people are people.

Different cultural influences may expose us to different experiences.  And yes, the influence culture has on us can be overwhelmingly powerful.  But no matter how strong cultural influence is, we cannot and should not let it affect us to the point where we lose sight of what it means to be human.  To reiterate: people are people are people are people.  (Slight pause.)

There are two corollaries to that thought.  Pastors are pastors are pastors are pastors.  And churches are churches are churches are churches.  This holds true even when the pastors are called rabbis and when the churches are called synagogues.

And so I recently read an article by a Rabbi, Seth Goldstein.  Similar to myself, this particular colleague has had a long term tenure at a congregation.  Yes, synagogues are known as congregations.  In fact, congregation is a term found in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The title of the article was 10 Things I have Learned About Serving as a Congregational Rabbi.  I won’t list all ten.

Instead I’ll to skip to some of the conclusions the Rabbi reached.  Note: I’ve altered some of the language to fit the church, not the synagogue, but the ideas are the same.

As for those conclusions— first, said the Rabbi addressing the congregation based on the experience of a long tenure— first, I don’t want you to become a member of this congregation.  I want you to become a friend, a part of a whole.

I don’t want you to be a part of a club.  I want you to be a part of a community, to find value in the organization by finding value in the community.

This friendship is not based on your frequency of attendance, your religiosity, your preference for or disdain for the food at coffee hour.  It’s based on the shared value that we are better off together than alone and that congregations are needed to not just maintain traditions but to forge people to people connections.

Next, I don’t want you to make a pledge.  I don’t want you to simply offer financial support.  Rather, I want you to support this community based on a sense of deep commitment, engagement, gratitude.  Further, your support of the community should not be seen as a prerequisite for but rather as a result of participation.  (Slight pause.)

This is vital: I don’t want you to join a committee.  No, indeed, I want you to join with other like minded folks, committed to the same goals and outcomes.  I want you to work together on a common cause to make things happen.

Where your interest lies— governance, music, education, grounds-keeping, an entirely new idea— matters not.  Find some like minded folks and do it.  Forget meetings and minutes.  Think about creating and making.  (Slight pause.)

Here’s another way to look at our community, said the Rabbi.  I don’t want you to just show up.  Rather, I want you to be present.  In the context of community to see yourself as a passive recipient is a questionable practice.  To see yourself as an active participant in congregational life means you own what happens here, in this community.

Part of how that is done is by coming to services hoping to be moved, hoping to find meaning.  Come to classes hoping to learn, hoping to be inspired.  Come to a service project hoping to get your hands dirty, hoping to make a change in the world.

Come to the community to be open to new relationships, new friendships.  Come to laugh, to eat, to share.  Come to accept help when you need it, to give help when you are able.  And yes, come to be a part of this community.  But please don’t just show up.

The Rabbi writes this: if you do your part and I do my part we can fulfill the promise of what it means to live in a sacred community, a holy community.  Last the Rabbi says: let us demonstrate that when we join together, we can both transform and we can be transformed— transform and be transformed. [1]  (Slight pause.)

And these words are from Luke/Acts in the section commonly referred to as Luke: “‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets,’ Abraham and Sarah replied, ‘neither will they be convinced even if someone should rise from the dead.’”  (Slight pause.)

In the Gospel story, the rich person is unable to even know the beggar is at the gate.  Why?  This person of wealth has a flaw.  That flaw is not one of purposeful meanness or abusiveness or arrogance.  The rich person is simply unaware of what is going on right at the gate.  (Slight pause.)

It seems to me human society, the culture, is often flawed.  That is not because society is purposefully mean or abusive or arrogant.  To often we are, the society is, simply unaware of what is going on, right in front of us.

I want to suggest that we have the ability to fix that flaw.  How is it fixable?  We need to be involved.

You see, the person of wealth realizes everyone in the household has the same problem and says (quote): “I beg you, then, to send Lazarus to my own house where I have five siblings.  Let Lazarus be a warning to them,...”

Let me be clear about this: being frightened is not being involved.  Being frightened means retreating into a shell.  Being frightened means being unaware.  Being frightened means being detached from reality.

Being frightened means not taking action when it’s needed.  Being frightened means losing track of this deep truth: people are people are people are people.

This is obvious: the person of wealth always had a way to be aware of Lazarus.  After all, Lazarus was sitting right at the gate.  But I suspect the rich person was always distracted— distracted by the culture, distracted by being (quote): “dressed in purple and fine linen....”

In fact, there is nothing wrong with fine linen.  But sometimes people do become detached from reality because of the trappings society offers.  Because of the trappings of the culture, the society in which they live people become distracted.  Which is to say this story is not a warning about the afterlife.

It is, however, a threefold admonition.  The admonitions are these: first, do not be afraid.  Second, the trappings of our society may cloud your vision, if you let them.  And if you let them, that has the possibility of making you afraid.  Third, people are people are people are people.  Love them.  Treat them with equity.

When we forget that, we have forgotten what community, a congregation is about.  And a community, a congregation is a place where we can both transform and a place where we can be transformed.  Amen.

09/29/2013
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 Congregational Response and Benediction.  This is an précis of what was said: “Theologian Richard Rohr has said ‘much of organized religion tends to be peopled by folks who have a mania for some ideal order— something which is not possible.  The purpose of religion is not for the sake of social order.   The purpose of religion is for the sake divine union.’  Union, you see, union with God and with one another, is the point.”

BENEDICTION: There is a cost and there is a joy in discipleship.  There is a cost and there is a joy in truly being church, in deeply loving one another.  May the face of God shine upon us; may the peace of Christ rule among us; may the fire of the Spirit burn within us this day and forevermore.  And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much.  May we be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else.  Amen.

[1]
http://rabbi360.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/erev-rosh-hashanah-5774-10-things-i-have-learned-serving-as-a-congregational-rabbi-for-10-years/

Note: I did used the Rabbi’s ideas and much of the verbiage in this article.  But I did change some of the wording.

SERMON ~ 09/22/2013 ~ “Pray for Everyone?”

09/22/2013 ~ Proper 20 ~ Twenty-fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Jeremiah 8:18-9:1; Psalm 79:1-9; Amos 8:4-7; Psalm 113; 1 Timothy 2:1-7; Luke 16:1-13.

Pray for Everyone?

“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings should be made for everyone— for rulers and all who are in high positions, all who are in offices which wield authority— so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. ” — 1 Timothy 2:1-2.

Those of you who were here last week or read my sermon online or heard my sermon online may remember I started by saying that politics do not fascinate me.  Rather, the ‘horse race’ aspects of politics fascinates me.  It’s the statistical analysis of the underlying, ongoing trends— the ‘who voted for whom’— that’s what intrigues me.

Well, lo and behold, a friend sent me an article this week with some analysis on which I could chew.  The gist of the article was summed up in its provocative headline: “Science Confirms: Politics Wrecks Your Ability to Do Math.” [1]  Really?

Well, it seems a social scientist has done research to support that claim.  In a controlled experiment, some people were asked to interpret a table of numbers about whether a skin cream reduces rashes.  Then they were presented with a second table— a table that contained exactly the same numbers.  This one, however, was an analysis about whether a law banning the possession of concealed handguns reduced crime.

The experiment found when the numbers in the table conflicted with the position people held on gun control— meaning some people tested held positions for hand gun control and others held positions against— when the numbers in the table conflicted with the position people held they could not do the math with any accuracy.  However, when the topic had been skin cream they had absolutely no trouble with the math.

In short, when it came to skin cream two plus two equaled four.  When it comes to gun control two plus two equals five.  So, politics wrecks your ability to do math, right?  Politics makes you stupid, right?

Well, not so fast— that might be one conclusion you could draw.  But there is also a phenomena known as confirmation bias.  Confirmation bias is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their preconceived beliefs.  It means people confront, gather and remember information selectively.

And, indeed, research in this area says the effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.  Confirmation bias also means people think ambiguous evidence supports their position and leads to biased searches, limited interpretation, selective memory.  Of course, all that leads to polarization.  Positions become entrenched. [2]

Well, that may be just fine if you have a family disagreement about something simple— like no one can remember what year it was you took in a stray cat or dog.  That probably will play out this way: the more attached you are to the pet the more likely you are to say that animal has been a part of the household longer.

But when you’re talking about issues of public policy— issues which have the potential to effect many, many people— the trait called conformation bias should fall into the category of totally unacceptable behavior.  Twisting statistics to suit prejudice, even when you do not know you are twisting statistics to suit prejudice, is never acceptable, especially when it has the potential to do harm to others.  Sadly and strangely, the media, both mainstream and not so mainstream, can be seen as encouraging people to buy into bias.

Here’s an example.  There are often stories in the media that one or the other chamber of Congress has passed a piece of legislation.  And the story is reported as if one house and only one house of Congress passing piece of legislation is important.  It’s not.

To report that as important news is a little like reporting the results of a staged wrestling match.  It may be fascinating but it means nothing— zero, nada, zilch.  Not once have I seen that kind of story start this way: “The House today passed a bill that has absolutely no chance of becoming law.”

To be fair, that sentence might be buried toward the end of the story but not up front.  Why have I not seen a story start that way?  Because the media knows telling stories about conflict engages people.  Therefore, the headline, “man bites dog” or even “dog bites man” is engaging.  “Man feeds and walks dog,”— not so engaging.

By not telling the real story up front the media sets up a false sense of conflict.  Why?  They do want to engage us and portraying conflict is a sure way of doing that.

In fact, conflict is a continuing issue for we humans.  But I also want to suggest there is a way to approach life which minimizes conflict.  I call it a mature approach.  I haven’t been able to come up with a better label than that— but that’s why I call it that— a mature approach.

This is a way of living which attempts to overcome our biases with reality checks.  This a way of living which attempts to remain calm in the face of adversity.  This is a way of life which acknowledges God is present, God is real, God is with us.

What is this way of life?  It is a way of life that says pray first and pray always.  Prayer, you see, is not only the first and necessary step toward action— positive action.  Prayer can be a mature response to conflict— prayer— a mature response to conflict.  (Slight pause.)

And these words are from First Timothy: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings should be made for everyone— for rulers and all who are in high positions, all who are in offices which wield authority— so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. ”  (Slight pause.)

We miss the irony of that, you see.  Pray for those in power?  Those are not the ones presenting us with a peaceable life.  Hence, pray for everyone.

Indeed, it’s said the Roman Empire fell because of panem et circenses— bread and the circuses.  What is bread and the circuses about?  Bread and the circuses means people pursued juvenile distractions, the mere satisfaction of the immediate, rather than engaging a mature way of living.  To be clear, I think that is something to which we are all susceptible— being distracted in juvenile ways. [3]  (Slight pause.)

Catholic theologian and priest Richard Rohr says this: an attitude of ‘I can do it, I must do it and I will do it’ presents us with a problem.  It feels good.  But all the emphasis on my effort, on me, my spiritual accomplishments.

There is little active trust with this approach, says Rohr, in a reliance upon the grace and the mercy of God.  When we underplay the importance and universal availability of grace and mercy, we succumb to an unhealthy self-centeredness.  Please note: a key part here is that grace and mercy are available to all, not just to one group, not just to us, not just to me. [4]

Prayer, you see, is not about self-centeredness.  Or, as I’ve said here before, our culture tends to get God and Santa Claus mixed up.  Often our prayer gets relegated to just asking for help, as in ‘Dear God— I’ve got a 2:00 o’clock ‘Tee’ time.  Please keep it from raining!’

That kind of prayer is not a dialogue with God.  That kind of prayer is a plea to Santa Claus.  (Slight pause.)

All that brings us to the reading from Jeremiah.  You see, if there is a balm in Gilead— and the claim we make about prayer says there is— God provides that healing.

But the healing of God, the grace of God, is not something we control and not something we can understand.  You see when Paul addresses the ‘peace of God which surpasses understanding’ what the Apostle says is true.  The peace of God does surpass understanding.  And Paul cannot explain it.  And we cannot explain it.

But I need to add this: the inexplicable nature of prayer as it intertwines with the action of God does not mean prayer is simply passive.  Prayer can lead to action.

How so?  Prayer, prayer offered humbly, is not passive.  Prayer is a way to engage with God and the will of God.  And nothing is more clear in all of Scripture than this: God calls us to action.

God calls us to action on behalf of the poor.  God calls us to action on behalf of the outcast.  God calls us to action on behalf of the marginalized.

A mature faith, in fact, always leads to action.  And it is in action, not in passivity that God provides a balm.  So, a balm for our soul can be and is found in mature prayer.

It is found because in prayer we can be in dialogue with God and we do dialogue with God.  Dialogue with God— if that’s not enough to frighten you out of being juvenile, nothing is.  Amen.

ENDPIECE— It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction.  This is an précis of what was said: “The pop star and composer Cyndi Lauper grew up in Ozone Park Queens.  I grew up in the next neighborhood to the south of that, Woodhaven.  And we are not that far apart in age, either.  Now she is a Tony Awarding winning composer but early in her pop career she taught me a lesson.  One video for a hit song, Girls Just Wanna Have Fun.  And the video had in it the professional wrestling manager “Captain” Lou Albano.  And what we he doing in the video?  Well, the lesson this taught me is about conflict (conflict as in professional wrestling).  Conflict does attract attention.  That does not make conflict a mature response.  It makes it a response which attracts attention.  Prayer— that’s a mature response.”

BENEDICTION: We are commissioned by God to carry God’s peace into the world.  Our words and our deeds will be used by God, for we become messengers of God’s Word in our action.  Let us recognize that God’s transforming power is forever among us.  And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much.  May we be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one and nothing else.  Amen.

[1]  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/most-depressing-brain-fin_b_3932273.html

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

[4] http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Daily-Meditation--Introduction--Theme-6---Process--.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=aHg-awl6FU4

SERMON ~ 09/15/2013 ~ “Insiders, Outsiders”

09/15/2013 ~ Proper 19 ~ Twenty-forth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Jeremiah 4:11-12, 22-28; Psalm 14; Exodus 32:7-14; Psalm 51:1-10; 1 Timothy 1:12-17; Luke 15:1-10.

Insiders, Outsiders

“Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to the teaching of Jesus.  And the Pharisees and the religious scholars were grumbling and saying, ‘This person welcomes sinners and eats with them.’” — Luke 15:2.

There are those who would accuse me of being a political junkie.  But I don’t agree with that label since most so called political junkies are ideologically driven.  I am more interested in what might be called the ‘horse race’ aspects of politics rather than the ideological battles.

By ‘horse race’ I mean I am fascinated by statistical analysis.  I want to know based on underlying, ongoing trends, ‘who voted for whom?’  For me the questions ‘who did the winners influence’ and ‘who did the losers fail to influence’ are more interesting and tell more about our society than the ideological clashes of the body politic.

You see, in the long run I don’t think ideological battles mean much.  Why?  Whichever ideological side wins today, you can bet the other side will win at some point down the road.  Even if it’s not tomorrow, the other side will eventually win.

All one needs to do is examine the history of the American political scene over time to realize the truth of that.  And by history, I mean our full history.

If our entire 237 years as a unified country are examined carefully, a fairly sound argument can be made that our politics swing like a pendulum from liberal to conservative, from left to right and back about every fifty years.  To be clear: those swings do not happen exactly every fifty years but it’s close enough to be astonishing.

Well, I’m telling you all this because I recently read a book with the title This Town, by Mark Leibovich, a New York Times reporter. [1]  And what is ‘this town?’  ‘This town’ is the phrase insiders— powerful insiders— use to refer to Washington, D.C.

To a certain extent the book exposes the false liberal/conservative public posturing presented by insiders— members of the media and politicians alike.  Off camera they see each other at weddings, funerals and parties.  They are friendly with each other, dine with one another and visit each other’s homes on the social circuit.

Perhaps the deeper point made by the book is a lot of money is made and gets spread around among those on the inside and not too much attention is paid to ideology.  They make money together and lot of attention is paid by everyone just to making money, not ideology.

In telling that story the book tries to convey a tone of controlled outrage.  Controlled outrage— like when a member of Congress says they are shocked, just shocked to find out (for instance) that the National Security Agency has been tracking phone calls.  Well, the National Security Agency, the NSA has been tracking phone calls since 1979.

So, one wonders why a member of Congress might be shocked by that.  It’s been going on for 37 years.  And most members voted to approve of it over and over again by re-authorizing the 1979 law which created the process.  (Slight pause.)

Par of my point here is this is a given: in any society there are insiders and there are outsiders.  Go into a High School and you will be clued you into that.  If you observe the students as they sit munching their lunch in the cafeteria you can spot the students who are thought of as... cool and spot the students who are thought of as... uncool.

Further, to continue that High School analogy, students who are thought of as cool in a science lab may not be the ones who are thought of as cool in music class, may not be the ones who are thought of as cool on athletic practice fields.  My point is a multitude of different inside and outside structures entwine our lives.

Additionally, there is, I think, a part of each of us that wants to be cool in places in we will never get a chance to be cool.  Yes, I really did want to be a broadcaster for a major league baseball team.  Yes, that would have been really, really cool.

No, I will never be that kind of cool.  I think it’s that wanting to be cool in places it will never happen is something with which most of us struggle.  (Slight pause.)

And these words are from Luke: “Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to the teaching of Jesus.  And the Pharisees and the religious scholars were grumbling and saying, ‘This person welcomes sinners and eats with them.’”  (Slight pause.)

One of the things we tend to miss with the Fifteenth Chapter of Luke is that the whole chapter can been seen as a lesson about one thing.  Who is on the inside and who is on the outside does not matter in the Dominion of God.

Jesus accepts the tax collectors and other sinners.  The Pharisees and the religious scholars, appalled by this, effectively say, ‘these people are unclean, are they not?!’  To me, this reaction feels like the controlled outrage of the politicians I addressed earlier.

And that reaction is hard to swallow because the real accusation being leveled is this: these people are not members of our tribe.  These people do not do things the way our tribe does things.  Put another way, the Pharisees and the religious scholars are simply saying these people are not cool— or at least they are not our kind of cool.

And what happens then?  Jesus immediately overturns the accusation of the Pharisees and the religious scholars.  How?  Jesus includes the Pharisees and the religious scholars by engaging them and offering them these parables.  (Slight pause.)

The truth of the matter is cool and uncool, outsiders and insiders are created categories.  And we create them.  We create them because our tendency— and I’d be the first to admit it’s a very human tendency— is to break any group up into... tribes.

To be clear, I don’t think Jesus is saying we will ever get rid of tribes.  What Jesus is saying is this: in the Dominion of God tribes do not count for anything— anything.  (Slight pause.)

Well, that points to the obvious, does it not?  Why are there so many churches.  Isn’t the fact that all we Christians have broken up into tribes theologically detestable?  Why yes it is.  (Slight pause.)

I need to tell you about something else.  One of the things I try to do with my reading time, aside from reading current books like This Town, is I occasionally read a classic work and sometimes even a classic work in the field of religion and church.  A book I am currently reading is Visible Saints: The History of a Puritan Idea, published in 1963.

In these several sentences the author Edmund Morgan both paraphrases and directly quotes John Calvin.  (Quote:) “Calvin maintained that the visible church must be ‘composed of good and bad men mingled together’ and the failure to correct faults was no cause for withdrawal.  The ministry of the Word and the administration of the sacraments ‘have too much influence in preserving the unity of the church to admit to its being destroyed by a few impious men.’” [2]  (Slight pause.)

I’ll bet you didn’t think Calvin could be that liberal.  But Calvin probably understood being on the inside and being on the outside.

What we don’t get is that in his era Calvin was on the outside.  So, is this admission about inclusion by Calvin simply a theological stance or was it something he came to from experience— the experience of being excluded?  I don’t know.

I do think the bottom line is this: a sound theology says in the eyes of God the externals do not matter.  God does not create categories.  We do.  God does not decide who is cool.  We do.

So, do you want to be cool in the eyes of God?  Don’t split your neighbors into categories.  Just love your neighbor.  All of them.  Now that’s cool.  Amen.

09/15/2013
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 Congregational Response and Benediction.  This is an précis of what was said: “There is a reason one of the great slogans of the Protestant Revolution is ‘we are justified by grace.’  However, the surprise is so many Protestants, starting with the Puritans I might add are willing to excommunicate anyone whose behavior doesn’t please them.  They don’t like what they do?  They excommunicate them.  They, thereby, ignore grace for the sake of having a pure, spotless group.  If we insist on a pure spotless group, then we insist that the stability of the covenant relies on works.  Personally, I do not think insisting on purity and, thereby, denying the efficacy of the Grace of, of Mercy of God, is a good idea.”

BENEDICTION: O God, you have bound us together in a common life.  Help us, in the midst of our striving for justice and truth, to confront one another in love, and to work together with mutual patience, acceptance and respect.  Send us out, sure in Your grace and Your peace with surpasses understanding, to live faithfully.  And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much.  May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else.  Amen.

[1]   This Town: Two Parties and a Funeral— Plus Plenty of Valet Parking in America’s Gilded Capital, the Penguin Group, by Mark Leibovich.

[2] Pp. 21-22, Visible Saints: The History of a Puritan Idea, 1963, Cornell University Press, by Edmund Morgan.

SERMON ~ 09/08/2013 ~ “A Prisoner for Christ Jesus?”

09/08/2013 ~ Proper 18 ~ Twenty-third Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Jeremiah 18:1-11; Psalm 139:1-6, 13-18; Deuteronomy 30:15-20; Psalm 1; Philemon 1-21; Luke 14:25-33 ~ Colorscape Weekend in Norwich.

A Prisoner for Christ Jesus?

“This is a letter from Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and from Timothy our brother.  It is written to Philemon our dear friend and co-worker and to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our companion in the struggle and to the church in your house: Grace and peace from Abba, God, and our Savior, Jesus, the Christ.” — Philemon 1-3.

A while back we, this church, decided to stop ordering pre-printed bulletins, the front and back covers, used by many churches in the United Church of Christ.  We did so in part because we realized we could make the bulletins ourselves.

The front covers we now use tend to fall into four categories of artwork.  We use original drawings, often created by Judy Smith.  We use photographs, created by one Bonnie Scott Connolly.

We also use copyright cleared artwork, scanned in and enhanced by Cheri Willard and scanned in pictures from the history of this church.  In 2014 the covers will more heavily reflect the history because of our 200th Anniversary Celebration.

As to the short essays found on the back of the printed covers, the denomination, the United Church of Christ, actually puts these writings on their website.  Hence, Cheri just goes to that web page, downloads the piece and puts it on the back cover.

By way of confession, I don’t, myself, too often look at the back cover unless the essay is written by a friend, by someone I know.  This week was an exception.  I looked.  And so you don’t have to look also (don’t want to do that in the middle of the sermon, right?), so you don’t have to look also I’ll tell you what it says.  Or at least I’ll tell you the short version.

In the book Defining the Church for Our Time, Peter Schmiechen, President Emeritus of Lancaster Theological Seminary, discusses components that describe church.  This is a quote from the essay: “The church is a community which embodies in structures and practices the new life of Christ and the Spirit.”  (Slight pause.)

The author then lists, in groups, structures and practices common to most churches.  The following are listed [as these are enumerated, the pastor counts them off one finger at a time]: worship, sacraments and spiritual life; music, art and symbols; proclamation inside and outside the church; creeds, catechism and teachings; education at all stages of life; call and nurture of leaders; marriage, family and inter-generational life; fellowship and care for one another; service and witness, inside and outside the church; stewardship; a physical presence in the world; governance which orders, sets apart the life of the church from the world; ecumenical relations among Christians and other religious groups— thirteen— I ran out of fingers.  (Slight pause.)

That seems like a reasonable delineation of structures and practices.  But I want to suggest is that structures and practices are the supporting walls of church, not the foundation of church.

So, what is the foundation?  The essay says this, and I’ve already said it (quote): “...the new life of Christ and the Spirit.”  (Slight pause.)

And these words are from the work known as Philemon: “This is a letter from Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and from Timothy our brother.  It is written to Philemon our dear friend and co-worker and to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our companion in the struggle and to the church in your house: Grace and peace from Abba, God, and our Savior, Jesus, the Christ.”  (Slight pause.)

So, what is the foundation the author acclaims on that back cover (quote:) “...the new life of Christ and the Spirit”?  So, what did Paul mean by using the label (quote:) “...a prisoner for Christ Jesus”?  Is that a foundation?  (Slight pause.)

We, in fact, know Paul was imprisoned several times.  But why?  What offense warranted incarceration?  (Slight pause.)

I have often said this.  There are several things we need to understand about New Testament times in order to comprehend what is being said in the writings of that era.

One the key point is that Jesus and all the Apostles were Jews.  Their understanding of Who God is was a Jewish understanding.

For the Jews God is One; they insisted there is but one God.  But they lived in a polytheistic world, a world which thought in terms of there being many gods.  Polytheism was the cultural understanding of the time; it was culturally normal to think in terms of many gods.

Hence, to say there is but one God was a radical proclamation for that time.  Now, the Romans— polytheist but devout themselves— saw Judaism as an ancient religion.

Therefore, they thought the idea of One God was quaint and they did not think it should be held against the Jews.  So, they allowed for Jewish belief because it was ancient.

That having been said, society today also does not understand this about New Testament times: most people, other than the Jews, thought of Caesar, the ruler of Rome, as a divine being.  Caesar was one of the gods.

Given all that, this is a probable reason Paul is in chains: treason.  After all, what is Paul proclaiming?

Paul is proclaiming the kinship of God and Jesus.  Paul is proclaiming Jesus is the Christ.  Paul is proclaiming that someone, other than Caesar, the Emperor, is divine and lives— a treasonous message, if there ever was one.  (Slight pause.)

All that leads us to ask ‘what are our foundations as a church?’  And I think that is the very thing Paul is trying to highlight.  You see, in our civilization today, slavery— the owning of another human being— is clearly immoral.  It was not so in New Testament times.  Slavery was not thought of as immoral.

So, while not directly requesting that Philemon, a slave holder, set free Onesimus, a slave, Paul suggests the ties that bind persons as brothers and sisters in Christ transforms and changes assumed cultural patterns.  It’s assumed by the society slavery is moral.  Paul says: ‘no.’  We are one in Christ.  In short, belonging to God, belonging to Christ, affects the way in which we belong to each other.

You see, a premise that permeates this letter is the knowledge that Christians live in profound connection to Christ.  One’s behavior must reflect that connection.

Why?  Is Christ connected with God in a kindred way?  Then we too are connected.  And if we are connected through Christ, slavery of any kind cannot be condoned.  This stand, which comes from the concept that we are connected with God, in relationship with God and, therefore, we should not enslave one another, is totally out of step with the time and place in which Paul lived, where slavery was a given.

But it is not at all out of step with the God of Covenant.  Why?  The love which God shows through Christ says the dignity and the integrity of each person counts, no exceptions.  (Slight pause.)

And so, what is the foundation of church?  Not its structures and practices.  The foundation of the church is this: we are one in Christ.  Or as Schmiechen has it, in the church we find (quote:) “...the new life of Christ and the Spirit.”  Paul, on the other hand, puts it this way (quote): “Grace and peace from Abba, God, and our Savior, Jesus, the Christ.”

In short, once you strip away the cultural baggage of the society of the Roman Empire found in New Testament writings and then strip away the cultural baggage of Twenty-first Century society which surrounds us— which may be even harder to do— at that point we can see a clear common denominator: in Christ and through Christ we are loved by God.

Let me put this just one other way.  Our relationship with God must not be based on cultural baggage.  We really do need to be able to see one another.   Our relationship with God must be based on the love God offers to each of us and to all of us.  Amen.

09/08/2013
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 Congregational Response and Benediction.  This is an précis of what was said: “Just like New Testament times, perhaps our biggest impediment to a relationship with God is the cultural blinders our times imposes on us.  Our culture says, for instance, the poor cause their own poverty but the economic system in which we live carries absolutely no culpability in creating poverty.  Really?  Wow!  There must be a whole lot of people who really want to live in poverty.  Maybe they’re just lining up to volunteer— I’ll be in poverty.  That sounds like a good idea!  I don’t think so.  What do you think?  The idea that the poor cause their own poverty is, my friends, a definition of cultural blindness.  Why?  God wants you to be poor, right?  Doesn’t make any sense at all.”

BENEDICTION: O God, you have bound us together in a common life.  Help us, in the midst of our striving for justice and truth, to confront one another in love, and to work together with mutual patience, acceptance and respect.  Send us out, sure in Your grace and Your peace with surpasses understanding, to live faithfully.  And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much.  May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else.  Amen.

SERMON ~ 09/01/2013 ~ “The Law of Love”

09/01/2013 ~ Proper 17 ~ Twenty-second Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Jeremiah 2:4-13; Psalm 81:1, 10-16; Sirach 10:12-18 or Proverbs 25:6-7; Psalm 112; Hebrews 13:1-8, 15-16; Luke 14:1, 7-14 ~ Labor Day Weekend ~ Communion Sunday.

The Law of Love

“...Jesus asked the lawyers and Pharisees, ‘Is it lawful to cure people on the Sabbath, or not?’” — Luke 14:3.

The ELCA— the Evangelical Lutheran Church in American— {the pastor points to a person in the congregation}— I have a Lutheran out here who is saying the words with me— is one of the largest denominations in the United States.  The denomination claims more than 4 million members in nearly 10,000 congregations across the 50 states and the Caribbean.  Christ Lutheran on North Broad Street is a member of this group of churches.

The denomination recently made some news by electing a new presiding Bishop.  Unlike the United Church of Christ, Lutherans do have Bishops.  The news is that by a very wide margin the Lutherans elected the Reverend Elizabeth A. Eaton.  The Reverend Eaton will be the first woman to hold the office of Presiding Bishop in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in American.

In fairness, I do have to point out the Episcopal Church has already accomplished this kind of first.  In 2006 the Episcopalians elected the Rev. Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori, who had been a Bishop in Nevada.

In any case, I heard Bishop Elect Eaton interviewed this week.  This was the first question the person interviewing her asked is this: “What’s the greatest challenge for your church as you take over.”

The new Bishop wisely demurred.  “I won’t be taking over,” she offered.  “God is in charge.  I find great comfort in that.”

When it came to the rest of her answer, she again demurred by making sure she applied the answer to the state of churches in general, not just Lutherans.  And she stated the obvious.  It is no longer the 1950s.  The church has to be aware of that.

She then said something equally obvious, something we often tend to forget, especially when people operate out of a memory of what the church was in the 1950s, as churches sometimes do.  She said in the 1950s the church had a privileged status.

In the 1950s, she said, kids did not play sports on Sundays.  By law, professional sports teams could not start their Sunday games before 2:00 p.m.  That kind of privilege, that kind of acceptance, that kind of legal protection granted to a specific religious group is ancient history, said the Reverend Eaton, a thing of the past.

“When the church was new, it did not have any kind of privileged status.  The world in which Paul preached,” she said, “did not make any special accommodation for Sunday.  The Roman Empire did not give people Sundays off.  Still, it seems to me,” she insisted, “we did rather well in the long run.”  (Slight pause.)

I, myself, often wonder why, in our society, churches tend to look to the law to protect a privileged status.  Just as a current example, there were many churches who were and who still are against same-sex marriage— not this church, but there are many.

No one has ever been able to explain to me why those churches need the law as a means to the end of having things their way.  This is especially true since the laws which are in place and allow for same sex marriages do not require those churches to officiate at, to preside over any of those marriages.

I, personally, am happy to let other churches go their own way, do what they want.  I do not want those churches to, by law, have control over my life.  I do not want those churches telling me what to do by trying to turn their practices into law.  There is a difference between practice and law.   (Slight pause.)

“...Jesus asked the lawyers and Pharisees, ‘Is it lawful to cure people on the Sabbath, or not?’”— words from the Gospel of Luke.  (Slight pause.)

So, what is law?  (Slight pause.)  I would be the last to deny law is a rule or a set of rules.  The rules which comprise all laws are strictures, walls, barriers, a box within which one stays.

Please note: in both a real and in a theoretical sense and contrary to populist belief, the prime reason for law, the reason all law exists, is not to punish.  Punishment is not its prime purpose.  The prime reason for the existence of a law is to set a boundary.

Punishment can and may happen after boundaries are shattered, broken.  But punishment is not the reason law exists.  (Slight pause.)

So, what is Biblical law?  Is Biblical law simply a series of rules, a set of strictures?  Some people seem to think it is.  After all, why would there be so much arguing about the Decalogue being the basis of all law if some people did not think it is?

However, while political populists may not agree with what I am about to say, scholars, theologians and Jesus all agree— scholars, theologians and Jesus all agree— the basis of law is not the Decalogue.  The basis of law is a twofold imperative: love God; love neighbor.

In fact, you can see something very interesting behind the story we heard today.  By asking (quote:) “If one of you has a child or an ox that has fallen into a well, will you not immediately pull it out even on a Sabbath day?” Jesus is not asking them if they will pull a child or an ox out of a well on a Sabbath— of course they will.  Jesus knows it; they know it.

Jesus is asking a deeper, more cutting, question.  Jesus is asking ‘are you willing to use the law as a cudgel?’  Jesus is asking ‘why are you willing to use the law as a weapon?’  Jesus is asking ‘why are you willing to use the law as a means of punishment?’  Jesus is asking ‘what is the purpose of the law?’  (Slight pause.)

You have heard me say this hundreds, if not thousands of times.  I said it earlier.  The law— Biblical law— boils down to this: love God; love neighbor.

Too often the follow up question asked of that statement is: ‘who is my neighbor?’  But the question, itself, is the wrong question.  It is wrong because it, effectively, asks about a neighbor as if a neighbor can be found in a physical location.

Neighbor is not a geographical concept.  It is not about the location of said neighbor.  The term ‘neighbor’ is not even about which person or group qualifies as neighbor.  No, indeed, neighbor is a moral concept.  The imperative to love one’s neighbor is an invitation to a moral practice.

Therefore, loving one’s neighbor means maintaining both a collective responsibility and an individual responsibility which insists on the need for the preservation of the dignity of others.  Loving one’s neighbor means maintaining both a collective and an individual responsibility which insists on integrity of all people.  (Slight pause.)

So, what is Biblical law?  Biblical law is not a rule or a set of rules or a stricture or a wall or a barrier or a box within which one stays.  Rather, Biblical law is a moral imperative.

More importantly, it is not a moral imperative inside which we are expected to confine ourselves.  It is not a moral imperative out from which we are called to live.  (Slight pause.)

It has occurred to me, and perhaps it has occurred to Bishop Eaton too, that the privileged place Christianity had in society, the legal protection rendered by a secular government— which Christianity probably even sought— may not have been the best thing that ever happened to Christianity.  Paul, just as a for instance, did not think in those terms, did not think in terms of the law protecting what he might believe or even his practices.

So perhaps what we need to understand is something quite simple.  The only law we find in Scripture is not at all like the law rendered by secular government.  The only law we find in Scripture is the law of love.  And that law, the law of love, transcends rules.

Further, the law of love should not be reduced to something (pardon the expression) simply warm and fuzzy.  Love is a feeling, there is no question.  But the love being addressed here actually goes beyond that.  Biblical love is a moral imperative.  And, as would be true of any moral imperative, loving God and loving neighbor is also a call to action.

Indeed and to paraphrase the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the only thing we can do which is harmful is nothing.  Love your neighbor: a call to action.  Amen.

09/01/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational

ENDPIECE— It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction.  This is an précis of what was said: “My late Mother had this funny little interesting saying.  She said: ‘I love humanity.  It’s people I can’t stand.’  And you can understand that when you get exasperated with somebody.  I get it.  And loving humanity in one sense is a moral imperative.  The question is ‘how does that happen?’  Well, it happens the other way around.  You need to love people.  You need to reach out when they have a health problem, when they’re hungry, when they’re homeless.  You need to love people.  If you do that the humanity part will take care of itself, won’t it?”

BENEDICTION: Let us place our trust in God.  Let us go from this place to share the Good News as we are witnesses.  And this is, indeed, the Good News: by God we are blessed; in Jesus, the Christ, the beloved of God, we are made whole.  Let us depart in confidence and joy that the Spirit of God is with us.  And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much.  May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else.  Amen.